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