Competing discourses of energy development: The implications of the Medupi coal-fired power plant in South Africa

Rafey, William; Sovacool, Benjamin K.

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.05.005

Cited by 59 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These shared meanings are indicative of subjective worldviews (Sovacool, Brown and Valentine, 2016, p.332), representing a particular way of viewing the world and defining what is possible. Thus, for stakeholders, discourse captures the problems and their necessary solutions (Rafey andSovacool,2011, p.1142).…”

Section: Discourse and Logic Schismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The presidential politics of climate discourse: Energy frames, policy, and political tactics from the 2016 Primaries in the United States

Brown

Sovacool

2017

Energy Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents the results of an investigation into the frequency in which four candidates of the 2016 US. Presidential primary season communicated their political positions on climate change, and how they subsequently framed these stances in numerous contextual drivers alongside energy policies. A systematic content analysis of political debates, campaign speeches, and press statements reveals how Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz undertook in vote-seeking behaviour to create distinct stances on energy and climate issues. Results indicate not only partisan polarization, but also-that stakeholder dynamics, control of communications and communication frequency are inter-dependent and reinforcing in generating differing climate positions. Institutional dynamics exacerbate these 'logic schisms' rather than providing a means of collective decision making. We test such climate discourse according to a typology of scientific, economic, national security, and moral frames. We also assess how particular frames morph over time, and are impacted by exogenous factors such as global climate change negotiations, national environmental crises (such as the Flint Water Crisis), and contestation over stranded assets and fossil fuel divestment. We find that political climate discourse must communicate to collective, bipartisan interests whilst avoiding politically divisive climate frames. National security is offered as a means of potential reconciliation and the discourse surrounding this must be deliberative in order to promote consensus driven politics and raise public awareness, bringing more stakeholders into the discussion. Keywords 2: Political Communication, Discourse, Content Analysis, and FramesThis section of the paper presents our key conceptual approaches, namely those of political communication, discourse, content analysis, and frames. Thus, the framework utilized in this study is the result of synthesising several literatures. Political communication and political economy literature provide the assumption that all candidates seek power and communicate policy stances to gain votes. Content analysis reveals the extent to which candidates regard the issue of climate change as a source of political capital, denoted by the frequency in which the issue is raised. Discourse analysis and framing literature reveal how the candidates communicate a narrative by specifically constructing climate stances to engage specific stakeholders. How candidates employ certain frames will ultimately uncover whether candidates frame their stances different in context specific situations in order to maximise political capital. Discourse and logic schisms

show abstract

Section: Discourse and Logic Schismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The presidential politics of climate discourse: Energy frames, policy, and political tactics from the 2016 Primaries in the United States

Brown

Sovacool

2017

Energy Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The term discourse refers to "a collective way of apprehending and comprehending the world" (Rafey andSovacool 2011, p. 1142). Discourses can be assembled into discursive frames, with framing referring to a process through which an intersubjective meaning is constructed to facilitate organizational goals (Snow and Benford 1988;Benford 1993;Bickerstaff and Agyeman 2000;Fiss and Hirsch 2005;Doulton and Brown 2009).…”

Section: Discourse Framing and Politics Of Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

Uncovering Discursive Framings of the Bangladesh Shipbreaking Industry

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shipbreaking in the Chittagong region of Bangladesh supplies metal to meet the needs of the nation's construction sector. The shipbreaking industry has received international attention for environmental contamination and workers' insecurity. However, these issues have been framed without considering the actors that produce them and their associated motives. This paper illuminates the conflicting discourses regarding the industry between two divergent groups of actors. On the one hand, national and international NGOs collaborate to enforce a discourse focused on negative localized impacts. On the other hand, yard owners, yard workers, and local community members forge a counter discourse, focused on positive localized impacts and raising doubts about the origin of the environmental pollutants and occupational standards setting. National and international actors have so far missed the conflicting perspective of workers, yard owners, locals and NGOs. We contend that these divergent discourses involve scalar politics, with one discursive frame focused on localized impacts in order to leverage global resources, while the other situates local communities in the global world system; this confounding of scale leads to ineffective policy formulation. This shipbreaking case study provides a valuable lesson on the importance of listening to and including stakeholders at multiple scales when seeking policies to address localized impacts of a globalized industry.

show abstract

“…It provides insight into the interplay of messages, narrative and/or argumentative structures and policy perceptions (Rafey and Sovacool, 2011). Several approaches to discourse analysis in the environmental realm follow the works of Michel Foucault (1979Foucault ( , 1991.…”

Section: Analytical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…* Grouping in this format tries to pull together various related stances into singular norms about climate-conflict outcomes using a discursive homogenisation or coalition perspective similar to Rafey and Sovacool (2011). Climate security is not freedom from climate threats, but a way to express the risks and threats posed by climate change: conflict and violence make this expression clearer in terms of the meanings inferred.…”

Section: Denial Claims/detachedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspectives on contextual vulnerability in discourses of climate conflict

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The science of climate security and conflict is replete with controversies. Yet the increasing vulnerability of politically fragile countries to the security consequences of climate change is widely acknowledged. Although climate conflict reflects a continuum of conditional forces that coalesce around the notion of vulnerability, how different portrayals of vulnerability influence the discursive formation of climate conflict relations remains an exceptional but under-researched issue. This paper combines a systematic discourse analysis with a vulnerability interpretation diagnostic tool to explore (i) how discourses of climate conflict are constructed and represented, (ii) how vulnerability is communicated across discourse lines, and (iii) the strength of contextual vulnerability against a deterministic narrative of scarcity-induced conflict, such as that pertaining to land. Systematically characterising climate conflict discourses based on the central issues constructed, assumptions about mechanistic relationships, implicit normative judgements and vulnerability portrayals, provides a useful way of understanding where discourses differ. While discourses show a wide range of opinions "for" and "against" climate conflict relations, engagement with vulnerability has been less pronounced -except for the dominant context centrism discourse concerned about human security (particularly in Africa). In exploring this discourse, we observe an increasing sense of contextual vulnerability that is oriented towards a concern for complexity rather than predictability. The article concludes by illustrating that a turn towards contextual vulnerability thinking will help advance a constructivist theory-informed climate conflict scholarship that recognises historicity, specificity, and variability as crucial elements of contextual totalities of any area affected by climate conflict.

show abstract

Competing discourses of energy development: The implications of the Medupi coal-fired power plant in South Africa

Cited by 59 publications

References 21 publications

The presidential politics of climate discourse: Energy frames, policy, and political tactics from the 2016 Primaries in the United States

The presidential politics of climate discourse: Energy frames, policy, and political tactics from the 2016 Primaries in the United States

Uncovering Discursive Framings of the Bangladesh Shipbreaking Industry

Perspectives on contextual vulnerability in discourses of climate conflict

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About