‘Don’t Think of Fukushima!’: The Ethics of Risk Reframing in ‘Nuclear for Climate’ Communications

IF 1.5 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Ryan M. Katz-Rosene
{"title":"‘Don’t Think of Fukushima!’: The Ethics of Risk Reframing in ‘Nuclear for Climate’ Communications","authors":"Ryan M. Katz-Rosene","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2020.1864800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In recent years an assemblage of nuclear energy proponents has coalesced around the notion of ‘Climate First’ – arguing that nuclear power is a necessary component of the fight against climate change. One noteworthy addition to the Climate First fold is the semi-formalized communications campaign Nuclear for Climate (N4C). This article builds upon a previous ethical critique of Climate First by conducting a comparison of the extent of risk concept disclosure seen within N4C’s key messaging and more ‘traditional’ Climate First texts. The article demonstrates how there has been a noticeable shift in the communications strategy of N4C vis-à-vis ‘traditionalists’, and moreover that models of environmental framing and affective heuristics help to explain the strategic value of this risk reframing for the nuclear industry. It further argues that this reframing of risk gives rise to an ethical paradox, wherein strategic advocates of nuclear energy as a climate mitigation tool could be compelled to withhold important aspects of the nuclear story from the public to promote what they understand to be an urgently-needed tool for saving the planet.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"40 1","pages":"164 - 186"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics Policy & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1864800","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT In recent years an assemblage of nuclear energy proponents has coalesced around the notion of ‘Climate First’ – arguing that nuclear power is a necessary component of the fight against climate change. One noteworthy addition to the Climate First fold is the semi-formalized communications campaign Nuclear for Climate (N4C). This article builds upon a previous ethical critique of Climate First by conducting a comparison of the extent of risk concept disclosure seen within N4C’s key messaging and more ‘traditional’ Climate First texts. The article demonstrates how there has been a noticeable shift in the communications strategy of N4C vis-à-vis ‘traditionalists’, and moreover that models of environmental framing and affective heuristics help to explain the strategic value of this risk reframing for the nuclear industry. It further argues that this reframing of risk gives rise to an ethical paradox, wherein strategic advocates of nuclear energy as a climate mitigation tool could be compelled to withhold important aspects of the nuclear story from the public to promote what they understand to be an urgently-needed tool for saving the planet.
“别想福岛!”:“核能应对气候变化”传播中的风险重构伦理
近年来,一群核能支持者围绕“气候优先”的概念联合起来,认为核能是对抗气候变化的必要组成部分。“气候第一”项目中一个值得注意的新成员是半正式的“核促气候”(N4C)宣传活动。本文建立在之前对“气候优先”的伦理批评的基础上,对N4C的关键信息和更“传统”的“气候优先”文本中所见的风险概念披露程度进行了比较。本文展示了N4C与-à-vis“传统主义者”的沟通策略是如何发生显著转变的,此外,环境框架和情感启发式模型有助于解释这种风险重构对核工业的战略价值。它进一步认为,这种对风险的重新定义产生了一种伦理悖论,即核能作为减缓气候变化工具的战略倡导者可能被迫向公众隐瞒核故事的重要方面,以宣传他们所理解的拯救地球的迫切需要的工具。
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
Ethics Policy & Environment
Ethics Policy & Environment ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
×
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