Climatic Change

, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp 535–549 | Cite as

Constructions of climate justice in German, Indian and US media

Article

Abstract

Collective action on climate change is easier when the involved actors share an understanding of climate justice, that is, if they agree on the morally right way of dealing with the issue. Such understandings have been shown to vary, however. Based on German, Indian and US media coverage, we develop a typology of different constructions of climate justice. The five patterns we identify differ considerably across several dimensions, including the valuation of certain goods and rights, the definition of moral in-groups, and the basic principles for climate governance. These patterns can be found in all three countries, but their importance varies between them. The US debate is especially conflictive, with some actors emphasizing freedom from state intervention and others demanding provident political action. Although the positions in Germany and India are less divergent, there is also no agreement on how to address climate change in a just way in these countries. In particular, the conflict between global and intergenerational justice demands – reflecting the nature of climate change – and the enduring relevance of traditional conceptions focusing on contemporary and national communities are intricate.

Supplementary material

10584_2015_1488_MOESM1_ESM.docx (256 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 256 kb)

References

  1. Anderson A (2011) Sources, media, and modes of climate change communication. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 2(4):535–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arlt D, Wolling J (2012) Die Presseberichterstattung über die Weltklimakonferenz in Kopenhagen. Stud Commun Media 1(2):283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bäckstrand K, Lövbrand E (2007) Climate Governance Beyond 2012. In: Pettenger ME (ed) The Social Construction of Climate Change. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 123–147Google Scholar
  4. Beck U (2006) Living in the world risk society. Econ Soc 35(3):329–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berglez P, Höijer B, Olausson U (2009) Individualisation and Nationalisation of the Climate Issue. In: Boyce T, Lewis J (eds) Climate Change and the Media. Lang, New York, pp. 211–224Google Scholar
  6. Berlin I (2013) The Crooked Timber of Humanity. In: Alleged Relativism in Eighteenth Century European Thought. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 73–94Google Scholar
  7. Billett S (2010) Dividing climate change. Clim Chang 99(1):1–16Google Scholar
  8. Boden T, Andres B, Marland G (2013) Fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. http://dx.doi.org/10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2013. Accessed 09 April 2014
  9. Boltanski L, Thévenot L (2006) On Justification. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  10. Bulkeley H, Andonova L, Bäckstrand K, Betsill MM, Compagnon D, Duffy R, Kolk A, Hoffmann MJ, Levy DL, Newell P, Milledge T, Paterson M, Pattberg P, VanDeveer S (2012) Governing climate change transnationally. Environ Plan C 30(4):591–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carvalho A, Burgess J (2005) Cultural circuits of climate change in u.k. broadsheet newspapers, 1985–2003. Risk Anal 25(6):1457–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cass LR (2006) The Failures of American and European Climate Policy. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  13. Castán Broto V, Bulkeley H (2013) A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Glob Environ Chang 23(1):92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corbin JM (2003) Grounded Theory. In: Bohnsack R, Marotzki W, Meuser M (eds) Hauptbegriffe Qualitative Sozialforschung. Leske + Budrich, Opladen, pp. 70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dannenberg A, Sturm B, Vogt C (2010) Do equity preferences matter for climate negotiators? Environ Resour Econ 47(1):91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daub SJ (2010) Negotiating sustainability: climate change framing in the communications, energy and paperworkers union. Symb Interact 33(1):115–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dawson A (2010) Climate justice: the emerging movement against green capitalism. South Atl Q 109(2):313–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Gregorio M, Brockhaus M, Cronin T, Muharrom E, Santoso L, Mardiah S, Büdenbender M (2013) Equity and REDD+ in the Media. Ecol Soc 18(2):Art. 39Google Scholar
  19. Dolšak N (2009) Climate change policy implementation. Rev Pol Res 26(5):551–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dryzek JS (2005) The Politics of the Earth, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Eilders C (2002) Conflict and consonance in media opinion. Eur J Commun 17(1):25–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elsasser SW, Dunlap RE (2013) Leading voices in the denier choir. Am Behav Sci 57(6):754–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferree MM, Gamson WA, Gerhards J, Rucht D (2002) Shaping Abortion Discourse. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freedom House (2011) Freedom in the World 2011. http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2011. Accessed 07 May 2014
  25. Gampfer R (2014) Do individuals care about fairness in burden sharing for climate change mitigation? Clim Chang 124(1–2):65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gamson WA, Meyer DS (1999) Framing political opportunity. In: McAdam D (ed) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 275–290Google Scholar
  27. Gentzkow M, Shapiro JM (2010) What drives media slant? Econometrica 78(1):35–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grasso M (2007) A normative ethical framework in climate change. Clim Chang 81(3):223–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hans-Bredow-Institut (2009) Internationales Handbuch Medien, 28th edn. Baden-Baden, NomosGoogle Scholar
  30. Hart PS, Feldman L (2014) Threat Without Efficacy? Climate Change on U.S. Network News. Sci Commun 36(3):325–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hart PS, Nisbet EC (2012) Boomerang effects in science communication. Commun Res 39(6):701–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hediger V (2007) Asien. In: Thomaß B (ed) Mediensysteme im internationalen Vergleich. UVK, Konstanz, pp. 299–313Google Scholar
  33. Institut für Medien- und Kommunikationspolitik (IfM) (2010) Die führenden internationalen Zeitungen im Vergleich. http://www.mediadb.eu/tageszeitungen/50-zeitungen.html. Accessed 08 April 2014
  34. IP International Marketing Committee (IP IMC) (2008) Television 2008, KölnGoogle Scholar
  35. Jogesh A (2012) Handbook of Climate Change and India. In: Dubash NK (ed) A Change in Climate? earthscan, London, pp. 266–286Google Scholar
  36. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel G (2012) The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks. Nat Clim Chang 2(10):732–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kasa S, Gullberg A, Heggelund G (2008) The Group of 77 in the International Climate Negotiations. Int Environ Agreements 8(2):113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ki-moon B (2008) Address at the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the japan society and the 50th anniversary of the korea society. http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/search_full.asp?statID=275. Accessed 01 April 2014
  39. Klinsky S, Dowlatabadi H (2009) Conceptualizations of justice in climate policy. Clim Pol 9(1):88–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Laksa U (2014) National discussions, global repercussions: ethics in british newspaper coverage of global climate negotiations. Environ Commun 8(3):368–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lange A (2006) The impact of equity-preferences on the stability of international environmental agreements. Environ Resour Econ 34(2):247–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lidskog R, Elander I (2010) Addressing climate change democratically. Sustain Dev 18(1):32–41Google Scholar
  43. Liu X, Lindquist E, Vedlitz A (2011) Explaining media and congressional attention to global climate change, 1969–2005. Polit Res Q 64(2):405–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Luhtakallio E, Ylä-Anttila T (2011) Julkisen oikeuttamisen analyysi sosiologisena tutkimusmenetelmänä. Sosiol 48(1):34–51Google Scholar
  45. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the american public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52(2):155–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Merkens H (2003) Auswahlverfahren, Sampling, Fallkonstruktion. In: Flick U, von Kardorff E, Steinke I (eds) Qualitative Forschung. Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg, pp. 286–299Google Scholar
  47. Michaelowa K, Michaelowa A (2012) India as an Emerging Power in International Climate Negotiations. Clim Pol 12(5):575–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morrice D (2000) The Liberal-communitarian Debate in Contemporary Political Philosophy and its Significance for International Relations. Rev Int Stud 26(02):233–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Müller B (1999) Justice in Global Warming Negotiations. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Nisbet MC (2011) ClimateShift. American University School of Communication, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  51. Nyberg D, Wright C (2013) Corporate corruption of the environment. Br J Sociol 64(3):405–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Okereke C, Dooley K (2010) Principles of justice in proposals and policy approaches to avoided deforestation. Glob Environ Chang 20(1):82–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ostrom E (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob Environ Chang 20(4):550–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ott K (2012) Domains of Climate Ethics. In: Honnefelder L, Sturma D (eds) Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 95–114Google Scholar
  55. Painter J, Ashe T (2012) Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10. Environ Res Lett 7(4):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pfetsch B (2003) Politische Kommunikationskultur. VS, WiesbadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reese SD, Danielian LH (1989) Intermedia Influence and the Drug Issue. In: Shoemaker PJ (ed) Communication campaigns about drugs. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 29–45Google Scholar
  58. Reusswig F (2010) The New Climate Change Discourse. In: Gross M, Heinrichs H (eds) Environmental Sociology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rootes C, Zito A, Barry J (2012) Climate Change, National Politics and Grassroots Action. Environ Pollut 21(5):677–690Google Scholar
  60. Sampei Y, Aoyagi-Usui M (2009) Mass-media coverage, its influence on public awareness of climate-change issues, and implications for Japan’s national campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Glob Environ Chang 19(2):203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schmidt A (2012) Bewegungen, Gegenbewegungen, NGOs: Klimakommunikation zivilgesellschaftlicher Akteure. In: Neverla I, Schäfer MS (eds) Das Medien-Klima. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp. 69–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmidt A (2015) Moralvorstellungen in der öffentlichen Debatte: Konzeptionelle und methodische Überlegungen zu Relevanz und empirischer Untersuchung [Morality in the public debate: Conceptual and methodological considerations on its relevance and empirical investigation]. Stud Commun Media 4(2):69–134Google Scholar
  63. Schmidt A, Schlichting I (2014) Sustainability and Climate Change: Interpretations and Claims by Societal Actors from Germany, India and the United States. In: Müller MM, Hemmer I, Trappe M (eds) Nachhaltigkeit neu denken. Oekom, München, pp. 141–149Google Scholar
  64. Schmidt A, Ivanova A, Schäfer MS (2013) Media Attention for Climate Change around the World: A Comparative Analysis of Newspaper Coverage in 27 Countries. Glob Environ Chang 23(5):1233–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schmidtke H, Nullmeier F (2011) Political Valuation Analysis and the Legitimacy of International Organizations. Ger Policy Stud 7(3):117–153Google Scholar
  66. Sikor T, Newell P (2014) Globalizing environmental justice? Geoforum 54:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Silverstone R (2008) Mediapolis. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  68. Stevenson H (2011) India and international norms of climate governance. Rev Int Stud 37(03):997–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thaker J, Leiserowitz A (2014) Shifting discourses of climate change in india. Clim Chang 123(2):107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thévenot L, Moody M, Lafaye C (2000) Forms of Valuing Nature. In: Lamont M, Thévenot L (eds) Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 229–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Townshend T, Fankhauser S, Matthews A, Feger C, Liu J, Narciso Thais (2011) GLOBE Climate Legislation Study. GLOBE International; Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. http://www.globeinternational.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/GLOBE-CLIMATE-LEGISLATION-STUDY.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2011
  72. Townshend T, Fankhauser S, Aybar R, Collins M, Landesman T, Nachmany M, Pavese C (2013) How national legislation can help to solve climate change. Nat Clim Chang 3(5):430–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vanderheiden S (2008) Atmospheric Justice. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wallbott L (2014) Indigenous peoples in un redd+ negotiations. Ecol Soc 19(1):21Google Scholar
  75. Wardekker JA, Petersen AC, van der Sluijs JP (2009) Ethics and public perception of climate change. Glob Environ Chang 19(4):512–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wessler H, Brüggemann M (2012) Transnationale Kommunikation. Springer VS, WiesbadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wilke J (1999) Leitmedien und Zielgruppenorgane. In: Wilke J (ed) Mediengeschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschlafnd. BPB, Bonn, pp. 302–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German Aeorspace Center (DLR), Project Management AgencyBonnGermany
  2. 2.University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations