Framing Trade‐offs: The Politics of Nuclear Power and Wind Energy in the Age of Global Climate Change

Abstract

This article outlines recent debates over nuclear energy and wind farms in an age of growing concern about climate change. Proponents of these technologies have used “trade‐off” frames to promote these technologies in the face of current and potential opposition to them. This article examines the nature and limits of the trade‐off frames being used and their probability of success. We argue that using the language of trade‐offs is generally a suboptimal framing strategy: trade‐off frames remind the public of the costs associated with particular policies, and therefore play into the hands of policy opponents. However, policy advocates may turn to them when the costs of a technology are well known and are perceived as high. In such cases, trade‐off frames may help to justify controversial policy solutions. Like any frames, the trade‐off frames used in the debate over climate change solutions both illuminate and obscure the deeper issues involved in energy policy reform.

Public opinion on energy development: The interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology

“…Emphasis framing may also involve using terms with certain connotations that bring "attention to certain aspects of the issue at the expense of others" (Schuldt et al, 2011, p. 116). In essence, it conveys an issue's central idea, and actors compete to convey desired frames and influence public opinion (Pralle and Boscarino, 2011).…”

Whose lawn is it anyway? Redefining problems and the implementation of municipal stormwater policies

“…A well-defined problem definition can also determine in part how precipitously an issue rises or falls on the agenda of various agencies and actors. As such, a well-crafted problem definition is socially constructed, reflective of the issue's saliency and severity and is designed to reflect the values of the venue in which it competes for policymakers' attention and space on the agenda (Baumgartner and Jones 1993, Kingdon 1995, Pralle 2006a, 2006b, Pralle and Boscarino 2011. In short, if a problem is welldefined, broad and salient, and tailored to the venue, it is more likely to rise quickly in importance and become an item near the decision agenda (Cobb and Elder 1972, Lindquist et al 2010, Birkland 2011.…”

“…A complete problem definition also includes a preferred solution(s) or the means by which policy-makers may address the perceived problematic condition (Pralle and Boscarino 2011). Stone (1989) adds that the strategic use of symbols may further strengthen the definition and its appeal to actors by reducing complex ideas to core issues and values.…”

Climate deadlocks: the environmental politics of energy systems

“…20. For a useful analysis of a parallel to the case and issues around the framing of climate solutions discussed here, see Pralle and Boscarino (2011). 21.…”