Abstract
The politics of climate change is viewed through a discourse perspective. Central to this perspective's understanding of the environment is that the lack of urgency about the problem cannot be attributed to the nature of the climate problem and human beings alone. Environmental problems are subject to discursive struggles. The concept of discourse analysis is not discussed in relation to other, related terms, but used in a pragmatic way, aiming to advance insights about the processes under study. Two main, competing perspectives are identified: 'National Action' and 'Thinking Globally'. The findings are foremost valid for the Norwegian context, although different aspects of the climate issue have broader implications. Two central contributions to the field of climate politics are put forth: Firstly, viewing climate change controversies in terms of 'scales' is an important asset to literature in the field. The understanding of 'scale' adopted is fluid and procedural, a concept that is socially constructed. In climate politics there is no perfect fit between the ecological dimensions of climate change and the institutional dimensions of the problem. The studies show how climate change as a political problem belongs to the local, regional, national, or global scales. It is argued that we misunderstand
More>>
Citation Formats
Lindseth, Gard.
Political discourse and climate change: the challenge of reconciling scale of impact with level of governance.
Norway: N. p.,
2006.
Web.
Lindseth, Gard.
Political discourse and climate change: the challenge of reconciling scale of impact with level of governance.
Norway.
Lindseth, Gard.
2006.
"Political discourse and climate change: the challenge of reconciling scale of impact with level of governance."
Norway.
@misc{etde_20789791,
title = {Political discourse and climate change: the challenge of reconciling scale of impact with level of governance}
author = {Lindseth, Gard}
abstractNote = {The politics of climate change is viewed through a discourse perspective. Central to this perspective's understanding of the environment is that the lack of urgency about the problem cannot be attributed to the nature of the climate problem and human beings alone. Environmental problems are subject to discursive struggles. The concept of discourse analysis is not discussed in relation to other, related terms, but used in a pragmatic way, aiming to advance insights about the processes under study. Two main, competing perspectives are identified: 'National Action' and 'Thinking Globally'. The findings are foremost valid for the Norwegian context, although different aspects of the climate issue have broader implications. Two central contributions to the field of climate politics are put forth: Firstly, viewing climate change controversies in terms of 'scales' is an important asset to literature in the field. The understanding of 'scale' adopted is fluid and procedural, a concept that is socially constructed. In climate politics there is no perfect fit between the ecological dimensions of climate change and the institutional dimensions of the problem. The studies show how climate change as a political problem belongs to the local, regional, national, or global scales. It is argued that we misunderstand politics if we make clear distinctions between local or global politics. It is concluded that local and national actors have up-scaled the climate issue, seeing the climate issue as a global problem requiring global solutions, instead of local or national concerns. Second, and related to the first point, the way of viewing climate change as a global issue in a national or local context has consequences for the policy solutions that can be sought. The idea of thinking globally might work to distract attention from how actors at the different levels of governance can make a contribution to climate governance. A broader discussion about climate change as a concerted multilevel operation is opened up. A normative theoretical answer to the question of how to move forward is provided. It is argued that the scalar discourses analysed do not mesh and create a balance between the different rationalities of the three dominating rationalities in environmental policymaking: scientific, economic, and communicative. Today's environmental challenges, globally, nationally, and locally, demand a better understanding of the need to combine different rationalities and create alliances with different actors. The perspective brought forward suggests ways that discourses can be used as tool for a better realisation of policy goals. Six articles are analysed, illustrating the central arguments.}
place = {Norway}
year = {2006}
month = {Apr}
}
title = {Political discourse and climate change: the challenge of reconciling scale of impact with level of governance}
author = {Lindseth, Gard}
abstractNote = {The politics of climate change is viewed through a discourse perspective. Central to this perspective's understanding of the environment is that the lack of urgency about the problem cannot be attributed to the nature of the climate problem and human beings alone. Environmental problems are subject to discursive struggles. The concept of discourse analysis is not discussed in relation to other, related terms, but used in a pragmatic way, aiming to advance insights about the processes under study. Two main, competing perspectives are identified: 'National Action' and 'Thinking Globally'. The findings are foremost valid for the Norwegian context, although different aspects of the climate issue have broader implications. Two central contributions to the field of climate politics are put forth: Firstly, viewing climate change controversies in terms of 'scales' is an important asset to literature in the field. The understanding of 'scale' adopted is fluid and procedural, a concept that is socially constructed. In climate politics there is no perfect fit between the ecological dimensions of climate change and the institutional dimensions of the problem. The studies show how climate change as a political problem belongs to the local, regional, national, or global scales. It is argued that we misunderstand politics if we make clear distinctions between local or global politics. It is concluded that local and national actors have up-scaled the climate issue, seeing the climate issue as a global problem requiring global solutions, instead of local or national concerns. Second, and related to the first point, the way of viewing climate change as a global issue in a national or local context has consequences for the policy solutions that can be sought. The idea of thinking globally might work to distract attention from how actors at the different levels of governance can make a contribution to climate governance. A broader discussion about climate change as a concerted multilevel operation is opened up. A normative theoretical answer to the question of how to move forward is provided. It is argued that the scalar discourses analysed do not mesh and create a balance between the different rationalities of the three dominating rationalities in environmental policymaking: scientific, economic, and communicative. Today's environmental challenges, globally, nationally, and locally, demand a better understanding of the need to combine different rationalities and create alliances with different actors. The perspective brought forward suggests ways that discourses can be used as tool for a better realisation of policy goals. Six articles are analysed, illustrating the central arguments.}
place = {Norway}
year = {2006}
month = {Apr}
}