Panel Report onComparing National Responses to

Climate Change: Networks of Debate and Contention

AAAS Annual Meeting

Friday, February 18, 2011: 1:30 PM-4:30 PM

Panelists Jeffrey P. Broadbent, University of Minnesota , USA

Comparing National Responses to Climate Change: Networks, Discourse, and Action

Dana R. Fisher, University of Maryland , USAUnderstanding Political Discourse on Climate Change in U.S. Congressional Hearings

Sony Pellissery, Institute of Rural Management , IndiaContestations on Climate Science in the Development Context: The Case of India

Sun-Jin Yun, Seoul National University, South Korea Climate Change Media Debates in Korea

Koichi Hasegawa, * Tohoku University, Japan Japan's Climate Change Media Coverage and Politics in 2007, 2008, and 2009

Jun Jin, ** Tsinghua University, China Role of Chinese Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations in International Talks

Levania Santoso, *** Center for International Forestry Research, IndonesiaREDD+ politics in the media: a case study from Indonesia

_____________________________________________________________________*Could not attend due to medical issue. Broadbent will present Japan case.** Could not attend due to visa problem. Presentation is cancelled.***New member of panel.

Comparing National Responses to Climate Change:

Networks, Discourse and Action

• Jeffrey P. Broadbent, University of Minnesota , USA

• And Project teams worldwide

Our Common Experiment• Climate change creates global experiment.

• Why are nations responding so differently?

• Mitigate (Reduce GHG emissions), ignore, (adapt)

• Due to differences in evaluation and action

Common

Stimulus:

Intensifying

Climate

Change

Variation in

Responses:

Policies.

GHG Trends

Causal Factors

Evaluation

And Action

@Title of book in preparation

@

Compon Project

• Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks

• Ultimate goal is to explain:

–What causal factors cause variation

– in national evaluation of and action on CC

– resulting in different national policies on CC and

–national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trends

Midway Goals

• National policy-making systems very complex:

• Analysis of policy-making processes

• require knowing details of:

–national debates (discourse) on CC

– in national political activity around CC

• Probe the body politic

• to trace and compare response processes

Probing the Body Politic• Climate Change impacts national cases• Case-specific national discourse evaluates issue• Case-specific political action empowers evaluations• These interact to produce different policies• Increasing, stable or decreasing emissions trends.• Impact emerging international agreementscycle

Climate

ChangeEmissions

TrendsPolitical Action

(Empowerment)

Discourse

(Evaluation)

Case & Conditions

Emerging

International

Regime

Policies

Phase One—Current Phase

Methods

• Research Design: Cross-National Comparison

–Quasi-experimental design

– Internal political processes (outside influence)

–17+ cases of national level politics on CC

–Background variablesprocess differences

–Outcome variance: policies, emissions trends.

Methods 2

• Equivalent Data Collection in each country (case): Phase One: Content analysis

of national media newspapers, national legislative records

Phase Two: Survey of organizations (50-100) in government/society engaged in the CC issue and debates

• Survey Questions: • policy stances, policy actions, resources• networks of communication, collaboration

Methods 3• Phase Three: Test hypotheses • on factors causing variation in national GHG trends• Three Exemplary Hypotheses:

– Political: “the more that coalitions form to advocate a policy on mitigation, the more the government will enact those policies.” (Social Learning Group 2001)

– Cultural: “the more the culture accepts rational logic of science, the more discourse will favor IPCC-type analysis, leading to stronger support coalitions and increasing probabilities of mitigation”(Jasanoff 2005)

– Social: “the more the society provides venues for egalitarian representative stakeholder participation in policy formation, the more will stakeholders favor IPCC-type analysis, leading to stronger support coalitions and increasing probabilities of mitigation” (UNFCCC 1992)

This Panel

• Reports on interim results for

– for Phase One data only.

• Content analysis of national media

– newspapers, national legislative records

• To understand differences in national discourse

• And in persons and organizations being cited.

• Mainly descriptive analysis

– Not yet in hypothesis testing stage.

Outcomes

Outcomes: Variation in Emissions Trends 1990-2008

• CITATION: Tom Boden, Gregg Marland, Robert J. Andres. Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2006. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Oak Ridge, Tennessee. April 29, 2009. doi10.3334/CDIAC/00001. Accessed on http://rainforests.mongabay.com/carbon-emissions/ February 13, 2011

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Germany (2)

Sweden

United Kingdom

Japan

United States

Mexico

Canada

New Zealand

Greece

Brazil

South Korea

Taiwan

Indonesia

India

China

(Kyoto Commitment)(-21%)

(+4%)

()

(-6%)

()

()

()

Compon Cases• International level negotiations

• National/area cases

–Asia: Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea, India

–Oceania: New Zealand

–Americas: Canada, United States, Brazil, Mexico

–Europe: Sweden, United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, Austria

• CIFOR: Bolivia, Brazil, Indonesia, Cameroon. . .

• In formation (Portugal, Australia, Poland, Ireland . . . .)

Cases: % of Total CO2 Emissions- 2007 2.69

0.17 1.84

4.28

19.91

1.61

1.9

0.11

0.33

1.26

1.72

0.941.35

5.522.3

34.09

Germany (2)

Sweden

United Kingdom

Japan

United States

Mexico

Canada

New Zealand

Greece

Brazil

South Korea

Taiwan

Indonesia

India

China

rest

Phase One: Media Discourse Analysis

Phase One: Media Discourse

• Current panel presents Phase One analysis• Content analysis of: • Newspapers, legislative records

–L1: Media attention to CC • (1997-2009)

–L2: Evaluation of CC in media • (2007-2008)

–L3: Actors and positions cited in media• (2007-2008)

L1: Media attention to CC (1997-2009)

• Articles per Year mentioning the key words

–Climate Change/Global Warming

• Raw numbers per year

– These affected by size of newspapers.

• Better measure:

• News Share of articles per year=

–Number of CC/GW articles/total no. of articles

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

Articles per Year on CC/GW by Country

Japan

UK

Greece

Taiwan

Korea

New Zea*

Germany*

Brazil*

Sweden

India

US

Russia

China*

2007:IPCC 4th Assessment Report

IPCC and Al Gore receive Nobel Peace Prize

1997: COP3 - Kyoto Protocol

Adopted

2001: IPCC 3rd Assessment

Report

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Climate Change News Share

Sweden 3 pap avg

China 3 pap avg

NZ 3 pap avg

US 3 pap avg

Japan 3 pap avg

Korea 3 pap avg

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80%

1.00%

1.20%

1.40%

1.60%

1.80%

2.00%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

CC Article Newshare US-Japan

US 3 pap avg

Japan 3 pap avg

Korea 3 pap avg

Asahi

Nikkei

Yomiuri

The New York Times

The Wall Street Journal

USA Today

US

JAPAN

KOREA

NIKKEI

WSJ

L2: Evaluation of CC in Media (2007-2008)

• Readers code articles

• Assessment of inter-coder reliability

• Coding variables

• Major topic (6)

• Public Debates

• Policy Bills

Example: Six Topics in China

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Per

cen

t o

f ar

ticl

esExample: Six Topics in China

Science and technology Policy-making

Economic and energy interests Ecology / meteorological

Culture Civil society

Public Debates: Prominent IssuesHow do nations “frame” climate change?

o Real/Not? Human-caused/Not?

o Threat/opportunity? Whose responsibility?

US

o Responsibility of developing countries to reduce

o Scientific uncertainty of CC,

Korea and Japan

o CC provides economic opportunity

India

o West is responsible so we do not need to do anything

Indonesia

o REDD is opportunity for revenue plus forest protection.

L3: Actors and Statements

Code newspaper articles and legislative records

For statements on CC by cited representatives

For each such statement code four variables:

o Person name

o Organizational name

• Typology (BUS, GOV, PAR, NGO, ACA, SCI . . .)

o Category: normative summary of statement

• I.E. “US should adopt cap and trade”

• Reduce to main 10 or so debates

o Agreement: person agrees or disagrees with it

Schematic: Network Representation

ACA

NGO

PAR

BUS

Category A: US should

adopt cap and trade

Category B: US should

use nuclear energy to

reduce GHG emissions

Comparative Analysis of L3

Initial stages of analysis and comparison

Legislative records show government hearings

Newspaper analysis shows media filtered view

Major issues, debates and frames

Clusters of supports, opponents

Future Phases

Complete and compare Media Analysis

Conduct Phase Two surveys including

o Survey of international negotiations

o Analyze and compare survey results

National, cross-national, global hypothesis testing

Publication of reports, papers, books

Creation of public data base

Strengthen global research community

Include more national cases

Repeat project every 5 years as CC intensifies

Study changes in national/global reactions

End