Parallel routes from Copenhagen to Paris: climate discourse in climate sceptic and climate activist blogs

IF 2.9 3区 社会学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
C. W. van Eck, P. Feindt
{"title":"Parallel routes from Copenhagen to Paris: climate discourse in climate sceptic and climate activist blogs","authors":"C. W. van Eck, P. Feindt","doi":"10.1080/1523908X.2021.2000376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 was a watershed moment in the international climate change discourse, reinforcing controversy and polarization between climate sceptics and climate activists. Simultaneously, the blogosphere, known as a place for polarized mobilization, became a proliferating forum for both camps. Building on Dryzek’s and Carvalho’s conceptualization of environmental discourse, this paper analyses how ideological polarization is grounded in climate sceptics’ and climate activists’ blogs between COP15 and COP21. We investigated ten climate sceptic and climate activist blogs accessible in the UK. Qualitative-quantitative analysis of 357 blog posts revealed contrasting ontological and epistemological worlds in the climate change controversy. Four storylines were identified in the climate sceptical discourse – ‘hoax’, ‘no scientific evidence’, ‘climate sceptical science’, and ‘injustice’ – and five storylines in the climate activist discourse – ‘action’, ‘social justice’, ‘disaster strikes’, ‘potential catastrophe’, and ‘opportunity’. Implications for policy, practice and future research are provided.","PeriodicalId":15699,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning","volume":"99 1","pages":"194 - 209"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.2000376","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

ABSTRACT The Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 was a watershed moment in the international climate change discourse, reinforcing controversy and polarization between climate sceptics and climate activists. Simultaneously, the blogosphere, known as a place for polarized mobilization, became a proliferating forum for both camps. Building on Dryzek’s and Carvalho’s conceptualization of environmental discourse, this paper analyses how ideological polarization is grounded in climate sceptics’ and climate activists’ blogs between COP15 and COP21. We investigated ten climate sceptic and climate activist blogs accessible in the UK. Qualitative-quantitative analysis of 357 blog posts revealed contrasting ontological and epistemological worlds in the climate change controversy. Four storylines were identified in the climate sceptical discourse – ‘hoax’, ‘no scientific evidence’, ‘climate sceptical science’, and ‘injustice’ – and five storylines in the climate activist discourse – ‘action’, ‘social justice’, ‘disaster strikes’, ‘potential catastrophe’, and ‘opportunity’. Implications for policy, practice and future research are provided.
从哥本哈根到巴黎的平行路线:气候怀疑论者和气候活动家博客中的气候话语
2009年的哥本哈根气候峰会是国际气候变化讨论的分水岭,加剧了气候怀疑论者和气候活动家之间的争议和两极分化。与此同时,博客圈,这个被称为两极分化动员的地方,成为了两个阵营的增殖论坛。本文以Dryzek和Carvalho对环境话语的概念为基础,分析了气候怀疑论者和气候活动家在COP15和COP21之间的博客中意识形态的两极分化。我们调查了英国十个气候怀疑论者和气候活动家的博客。对357篇博客文章的定性-定量分析揭示了气候变化争议中不同的本体论和认识论世界。在气候怀疑论者的话语中确定了四条故事线——“骗局”、“没有科学证据”、“气候怀疑科学”和“不公正”;在气候活动家的话语中确定了五条故事线——“行动”、“社会正义”、“灾难袭击”、“潜在灾难”和“机会”。本文为政策、实践和未来研究提供了启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
6.20%
发文量
46
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信