The climate of debate: How institutional factors shape legislative discourses on climate change. A comparative framing perspective

Abstract

The climate of debate: How institutional factors shape legislative discourses on climate change. A comparative framing perspective. Legislative actors and their institutional settings constitute some of the central antecedents of the media's coverage of political issues, not least since they lie at the very heart of the democratic law-making process. Yet, although theories central to the field of political communication have long documented the orientation of the media towards elite policy actors (e.g. Bennett, 1990), we know little about the contexts in which they are embedded. This is particularly the case for those stages that represent the day-today dealings in plenary debates, committee meetings, hearings, etc.-in other words, the courant normal of politics-which make up the bulk of the policymaking process but mostly lie outside the brief peaks of political contest that occur during elections and popular referenda.

How climate change skeptics (try to) spread their ideas: Using computational methods to assess the resonance among skeptics’ and legacy media

“…To study the discursive resonance between the (potentially transnational) online communication of climate skeptics and traditional media, we focus on Germany. Germany represents an ideal case as climate skepticism was a small but significant phenomenon in traditional media [51], parliamentary arenas [4,52], and public opinion [6,20] during the period of analysis (June 2012 -June 2014). However, this wide-spread acceptance of man-made climate change does not mean that there was an equally high level of agreement on political measures.…”

“…Climate skeptics and their spokespersons in the media and politics have been stunningly successful in the US, where not only conservative citizens forcefully reject climate politics [3] but also the Trump administration. By contrast, in most European countries those defending the climate consensus, the climate advocates, (still) dominate political institutions (e.g., [4]), traditional mass media (e.g., [5]), and public opinion (e.g., [6,7]) with climate skeptics being in the role of counter-movements [8].…”

“…This study seeks to make three contributions. First, our study connects venues that have mostly been examined separately, as research has focused either on climate skeptics’ online communication (e.g., [ 10 , 11 , 14 ]; for a summary, see [ 9 ]), or on their visibility in traditional media (e.g., [ 5 , 15 – 17 ]), or on their strength in parliamentary settings (e.g., [ 4 , 18 ]). By comparing the discourses across venues, we contribute to a better understanding of the conditions that lead to greater resonance of counter-movement ideas in mainstream discourses.…”

Decarbonizing the transportation sector: policy options, synergies, and institutions to deliver on a low‐carbon stabilization pathway

“…They require a strong political commitment to appear on the policy agenda and to remain in place as they rely on investments that are only cost‐effective over the medium to long term . Reaching a consensus can be difficult because transport is complex and multifaceted, and policy interventions can have unintended consequences . Linking and packaging policies are vital to generate synergies and cobenefits between measures, including linking GHG reduction goals with other sustainable development goals, such as increasing energy security, road safety, public health, increasing economic productivity and air pollution, and improving equity and access .…”

“…13,56 Reaching a consensus can be difficult because transport is complex and multifaceted, and policy interventions can have unintended consequences. [57][58][59] Linking and packaging policies are vital to generate synergies and cobenefits between measures, including linking GHG reduction goals with other sustainable development goals, such as increasing energy security, road safety, public health, increasing economic productivity and air pollution, and improving equity and access. 60,61 A survey and interviews carried out for this paper among local and national policy advisors in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas show that the lack of funds, lack of suitable technologies, and public opposition are not considered to be the main barriers for the take-up of sustainable transport measures.…”