Climate Change Counter Movement Neutralization Techniques: A Typology to Examine the Climate Change Counter Movement

Abstract

The Climate Change Counter Movement has been a topic of interest for social scientists and environmentalists for the past 25 years (Dunlap and McCright, 2015). This research uses the sociology of crime and deviance to analyze the numerous arguments used by climate change counter movement organizations. Content analysis of 805 statements made by climate change counter movement organizations reveals that the theory Techniques of Neutralization (Sykes and Matza, American Sociological Review 22(6):664, 1957) can help us better understand the arguments adopted by these organizations. Taking two observations from two time points, the author examine not only the composition of the messaging adopted by Climate Change Counter Movement (CCCM) organization, but how these messages have changed over time. In all, there were 1,435 examples of CCCM neutralization techniques adopted by CCCM organizations across these two points in time. This examination of the movement provides valuable insight into the CCCM and the subsequent environmental harm that is partly facilitated by their actions.

Discourses of climate delay

“…As the public conversation on climate change evolves, so too does the sophistication and range of arguments used to downplay or discount the need for action (McKie, 2019; Norgaard, 2011). A mainstay of this counter-movement has been outright denial of the reality or human causation of climate change (Farrell et al , 2019), supplemented by climate-impact scepticism (Harvey et al , 2018) and ad hominem attacks on scientists and the scientific consensus (Oreskes & Conway, 2011).…”

“…A mainstay of this counter-movement has been outright denial of the reality or human causation of climate change (Farrell et al , 2019), supplemented by climate-impact scepticism (Harvey et al , 2018) and ad hominem attacks on scientists and the scientific consensus (Oreskes & Conway, 2011). A fourth strategy has received relatively little attention to date: policy-focused discourses that exploit contemporary discussions on what action should be taken, how fast, who bears responsibility and where costs and benefits should be allocated (Bohr, 2016; Jacques & Knox, 2016; McKie, 2019). We call these ‘climate delay’ discourses, since they often lead to deadlock or a sense that there are intractable obstacles to taking action.…”

“…Climate delay discourses comprise many separate strategies, some of which have already been identified, such as individualism (Maniates, 2001), technological optimism (Peeters et al, 2016), fossil fuel greenwashing (Sheehan, 2018) and appeals to social justice and economic costs (Bohr, 2016;Jacques & Knox, 2016). They have been examined in surveys and community workshops (Bickerstaff & Walker, 2002;Norgaard, 2011), in media sources and advertisements (Bohr, 2016;Jacques & Knox, 2016;Peeters et al, 2016;Sheehan, 2018) and in lobbying activities and political discourses (Bache et al, 2015;Gillard, 2016;McKie, 2019), using methods such as content analysis (Bohr, 2016;Jacques & Knox, 2016), grounded theory (Bickerstaff & Walker, 2002) and the analysis of social deviance (McKie, 2019). Many delay arguments are documented in key works tracing the history of environmental counter-movements in the USA, including the Merchants of Doubt, Deceit and Denial, The Triumph of Doubt and others (Brulle & Aronczyk, 2019;Freudenburg et al, 2008;Markowitz & Rosner, 2003;Michaels, 2008Michaels, , 2020Oreskes & Conway, 2011).…”

A Climate Backlash: Comparing Populist Parties’ Climate Policies in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden

“…Our hypothesis is that many populist parties engage in potentially powerful arguments that are not based on science denialism, at least in the conventional sense. Opponents of ambitious climate policy have, on several instances, replaced the focus on uncertain evidence with other strategies, such as political smear campaigns, or by arguing that climate policies would have drastic impacts on the economy (Fisher 2019; McKie 2019).…”

The dimensions of public opinion on climate change: belief, issue salience and support for government action

“…Previous research has uncovered substantial activity by interest groups seeking to spread misinformation about climate change (Mc-Cright, 2016;McCright & Dunlap, 2003Oreskes & Conway, 2010). The identification of the network of climate change countermovement (CCCM) organisations in the US by Brulle (2014) is particularly instructive, as are other analyses identifying similar organisations elsewhere, particularly in the UK, Canada and Australia (Dunlap & Mc-Cright, 2011;McKie, 2019). There are also a number of environmental with the political aspects of climate change opinion that are the focus of this thesis.…”