Module: 7SSG5208 Understanding Climate Change in Society
Essay title: Ethics of framing climate change Due date: 28 March 2014 Student number: 1355795 Word count: 1812 /3000
From boiled frogs, carbon sinks, carbon cowboys to green gold, various metaphors and lexicons have been used in climate change communication (Cohen, 2011; Nerlich and Koteyko, 2010). This essays aims to examine the ways in which climate change has been framed and its effects. We will consider the idea of climate change and framing theory before moving on to discuss how climate change has been framed, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom. Finally, I will reflect on the ethics of framing.
What is climate change?
The terms climate change and global warming have been used interchangeably especially in the U.S. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) defines climate change as “any change in climate time over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity”. Their definition differs from that of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers specifically to a change in the climate due to human activity. Both the IPCC and UNFCCC’s definitions can be classified as a lower-case reading of climate change (Hulme, 2009). Hulme (2009) proposed that an upper-case reading of Climate Change involves dissecting the term as an idea, which carries diverse social meanings to different audiences. Indeed, different understandings of climate have existed at the same time in different societies throughout history (Heymann, 2010). For instance, Marshall Islanders understood climate change not just as a change in the climate but in the cosmos and society as well (Rudiak-Gould, 2011). This is because the closest translation to climate in the Marshallese language is mejatoto, which conflate conceptions of nature and culture. Bearing in mind that any definition of climate is influenced by a society’s social, cultural, political and technological contexts (Heymann, 2010), we will explore the benefits of using frames to help different types of audiences make sense of climate science. Student number: 1355795
What is framing? According to Van Gorp (2007), the definition of framing remains varied in the academia. For this essay’s purpose, I will refer frames to the “conceptual tools which media and individuals rely on to convey, interpret, and evaluate information” (Neuman et al, 1992, p.60 as cited in Van Gorp, 2007). A frame is an interpretive storyline that outlines what is at stake and why it matters (Nisbet, 2009b). A frame package usually includes an issue’s definition, explanation, problematisation, evaluation as well as logical conclusions as to who is responsible for the problems raised (Van Gorp, 2007). While an issue such as climate change can be framed in many different ways (O’Neill et al, 2010), a frame can also be used to represent different issues. Additionally, individuals or groups can employ the same frame such as scientific uncertainty or social progress to disagree on issues like climate change or stem cell research. In other words, a frame can include arguments that are for, against and neutral (Nisbet, 2009b). Goffman (1981, p.63 as cited in Van Gorp, 2007) highlighted that frames are institutionalised in cultures, such as in myths, beliefs, values and norms. As such, frames are often invisible and journalists, policymakers, scientists and activists often employed them unconsciously. Nevertheless, the process of framing is a social construction (Gamson et al, 1992, as cited in Van Gorp, 2007). It manifests itself through conscious or unconscious use of framing devices including metaphors, catchphrases, sound bites, rhetoric, visual images, and other references to history, culture and literature (Van Gorp, 2007). Frames are distinct from an individual’s cognitive mental framework, known as schemata (Van Gorp, 2007). Schemata are an individual’s “collections of organised knowledge” that evolve with personal experiences and attitudes (Wicks, 2001 as cited in Van Gorp, 2007). Communicators use framing devices to activate a corresponding schema in their target audience to get messages across more effectively. Though frames can be considered a power mechanism in their own right, Van Gorp (2007) pointed out that the effects of framing will always be constrained by the audience’s interests, beliefs, experiences, desires and attitudes. Therefore, framing is not a “magical key” for advocates to gain widespread support for any ideology or policy (Nisbet and Mooney, 2007). On the contrary, ethical use of framing aims to make complex issues meaningful to diverse audience while remaining true to facts. Student number: 1355795
How has climate change been framed?
Since former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher raised public attention to climate change in 1988, the idea of climate change has morphed (Hulme, 2013). Nisbet (2009a) succinctly captured the dominant frames in which climate change has been debated in Western societies over the past few decades in Table 1. Table 1: Typology of frames applicable to climate change Frame Defined science-related issue as… Social progress A means of improving quality of life, or solving problems; alternative interpretation as harmony with nature instead of mastery. Economic An economic investment; market benefits or risk; a point of development and local, national, or global competitiveness. competitiveness Morality and ethics A matter of right or wrong; of respect or disrespect for limits, thresholds, or boundaries. Scientific and A matter of expert understanding or consensus; a debate technical uncertainty over what is known versus unknown; or peer-reviewed, confirmed knowledge versus hype or alarmism. Pandora’s box / A need for precaution or action in face of possible Frankenstein catastrophe and out-of-control consequences; or monster / runaway alternatively as fatalism, where there is no way to avoid the science consequences or chosen path. Public accountability Research or policy either in the public interest or serving and governance special interests, emphasizing issues of control, transparency, participation, responsiveness, or ownership; or debate over proper use of science and expertise in decision- making (“politicisation”). Middle way / A third way between conflicting or polarised views or options. alternative path Conflict and strategy A game among elites such as who is winning or losing the debate; or a battle of personalities or groups (usually a journalist-driven interpretation). Adopted from Nisbet, 2009a Student number: 1355795
Nerlich et al (2010) believes that Trumbo (1996) carried out one of the earliest studies on climate change frames found in the U.S. and German media. Subsequently, Boykoff (2004)’s work brought attention to the journalistic norm of balanced reporting that resulted in biased coverage of climate change even in the U.S. prestige press such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. In the U.S., scientific uncertainty remains the dominant frame in climate change debates, with increasing polarisation and partisan divide across the country (Nisbet, 2009b). Debates have since denigrated into a conflict frame, where Democrats are supposedly defending science from which Republicans are waging a “war” against. However, Fletcher (2009) noted that by reframing climate change as a national security threat or economic opportunity, communicators in the U.S. could bridge the partisan divide and engage traditionally sceptical audiences. More importantly, O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole (2009) found that catastrophic framings of climate change, with fear-inducing imagery and icons, are more likely to disempower audience and lead to fatalism, denial or apathy rather than positive changes of behaviour and attitudes. On top of that, O’Neill et at (2010) believes that the Pandora’s box frame reinforces the epistemological hierarchy where geosciences dominate the representation of climate change, resulting it in being framed primarily as an environmental issue. The disproportionate influence of physical sciences and economics in the IPCC has resulted in the marginalisation of other disciplines such as anthropology and communication studies. Echoing Jasanoff (2010), they argued that citizens have to come to appreciate the cultural and social dimensions of climate change before they could be motivated to act. Furthermore, O’Neill et al (2010) highlighted that industrialised countries and male have dominated the framing of climate change so far. They cited Karlson et al (2007)’s work to raise attention to the current North/South gap in climate change knowledge production and consumption. Meanwhile, Terry (2009) contested that the component of gender remains missing from mainstream framings of climate change. She posited that more attention must be paid to women’s restricted access to information, credit and land particularly in patriarchal societies, which deters them from engaging in climate change debates and mitigation or adaptation initiatives. Her observation corresponded with a national study on India in 2011, which found 16% of its 4,031 respondents knew almost nothing about global warming and this group were disproportionately rural, female and from scheduled castes (Leiserowitz, Student number: 1355795
Thaker et al, 2013). In contrast, a similar audience research in the US in 2013 found that most of the correspondents are highly aware of climate change due to easy access to the media (Leiserowitz, Maibach et al, 2013). As O’Neill et al (2010) recommended, more efforts are needed to close the disciplinary, geographical and gender gap in the framing of climate change.
Ethics of framing: to what extent is it ethical?
Nisbet (2009b) proposed four guiding principles for ethical framing of science. First, he believes dialogue should be the focus of science communication efforts, rather than traditional top-down and one-way transmission approach. Nerlich et al (2010) explained that the “public understanding of science model”, based on the information deficit model from the field of psychology, assumes linear transmission of knowledge from scientists to the public. In reality, communication is often two-way and audiences with different worldviews will interpret the same messages differently. Carvalho and Burgess (2005) believe that media producers and consumers are jointly engaged in dynamic meaning-making activities based on their “circuit of culture” communication model. Therefore, climate change communicators should have an acute understanding of their target audiences in order to tailor or frame their messages to be personally relevant and meaningful to the receivers (Nisbet, 2009b). Second, Nisbet (2009b) suggested that communications, be it scientists, journalists, policymakers or activists, should always explain not just the reasoning but also the values embedded in a specific policy action clearly. Any advocacy that ignores or takes the political dimension for granted; focusing narrowly on the science will only shut down debates. For instance, environmentalists often labelled those who dispute climate science as “deniers”. However, climate contrarians sometimes disagree with the science due to ideological and cultural beliefs rather than scientific ignorance (Rudiak-Gould, 2013). Framing becomes useful in this case as climate change communicators can try to use a different frames such as middle way or economic development to reach out to potentially hostile audiences. Nisbet (2009a) stressed accuracy as his third ethical imperative. Climate change communicators must act as honest brokers. Distorting truth or overdramatizing the effects of future climate change will only lead to alarmism or worse, lost of public trust. Finally, climate change communicators should not use framing to demonise their opponents or any particular social group for partisan or Student number: 1355795
electoral gains. The ends do not justify the means. He added while frames help to set the terms of debate in the public sphere, they rarely, if ever, exclusively drive public opinion. In addition, concerned citizens should be encouraged to participate in “bottom-up” framing of climate change issues. As Nerlich et al (2010), framing helps climate change communicators to move towards reflective engagement, the aim should never be to manipulate audience or distort the truth.
- ends -
References:
Boykoff, M.T. and Boykoff, J.M. (2004) Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125-136.
Carvalho A. and Burgess J. (2005) Cultural circuits of climate change in UK
Cohen, M.J. (2011) Is the UK preparing for “war”? Military metaphors, personal carbon allowances, and consumption rationining in historical perspective. Climate Change, 104, 199-222.
Jasanoff, S. (2010) A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2/3), 233-253.
Fletcher, A.L. (2009) Clearing the air: the contribution of frame analysis to understanding climate policy in the United States. Environmental Politics, 18(5), 800- 816.
Gamson, W. A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373-393.
Goffman, E. (1981). A reply to Denzin and Keller. Contemporary Sociology, 10(1),
60–68. Student number: 1355795
Heymann, M. (2010) The evolution of climate ideas and knowledge. WIREs Climate Change, 1(4), 581-597.
Hulme, M. (2009) Why we disagree about climate change: understanding
controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hulme, M. (2013) Chapter 1 ‘The public life of climate change: the first 25 years’ pp.1-12 in: Exploring climate change through science and in society, Routledge, Abingdon, 330pp.
IPCC (2007) Definitions of climate change. Available from
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains1.html [Accessed 27 March 2014]
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Howe, P. (2013) Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in April, 2013. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
Leiserowitz, A., Thaker, J., Feinberg, G., & Cooper, D. (2013) Global Warming’s Six Indias. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
Nerlich, B. and Koteyko, N. (2010) Carbon gold rush and carbon cowboys: a new chapter in green mythology? Environmental Communication, 4(1), 37-53.
Nerlich, B., Koteyko, N. and Brown, B. (2010) Theory and language of climate change communication. WIREs Climate Change, 1(1), 97-110.
Neuman, W. R., Just, M. R., & Crigler, A. A. (1992). Common knowledge. News and the construction of political meaning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Nisbet, M.C. (2009a) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement Environment 51(2), Mar/Apr, 514-518. Student number: 1355795
Nisbet, M.C. (2009b) The ethics of framing science Chapter 4 in Communicating
biological sciences: ethical and metaphorical dimensions (eds.) Nerlich, B., Elliott, R. and Larson, B. Ashgate Press, 272pp.
Nisbet, M.C. and Mooney, C. (2007) Policy forum: Framing science. Science, 316(5821), 56.
O’Neill, S.J. and Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009) ‘Fear won’t do it’: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through imagery and icons. Science Communication, 30(3), 355-379.
O’Neill, S.J., Hulme, M., Turnpenny, J. and Screen, J.A. (2010) Disciplines, geography, and gender in the framing of climate change. Bulletin of American Meteorological Society, 91(8), 997-1002.
Rudiak-Gould,P. (2013) Cross-cultural insights into climate change skepticism.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94(11), 1707-1713.
Rudiak-Gould,P. (2011) Promiscuous corroboration and climate change translation:
a case study from the Marshall Islands Global Environmental Change 22(1), 46-54
Terry, G. (2009) No climate justice without gender justice: An overview of the issues. Gender Devevelopment, 17, 5-18.
Trumbo, C.W. Constructing climate change: Claims and frames in U.S. news coverage of an environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science, 1996, 5, 1-15.
Van Gorp, B. (2007) The constructionist approach: Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication, 57, 60-78.
Wicks, R. H. (2001). Understanding audiences: Learning to use the media
