This article examines the question of how climate change awareness and media usage are related to each other. An integrated model for explaining awareness of environmental problems and behavioural intentions is developed. The model is then tested using data from a Germany-wide representative survey. In contrast to most previous studies, this investigation focuses not on the effects of selective, topic-specific media usage, but on the differential effects of information usage on multiple dependent variables. The results show that media usage does have a certain influence on awareness of climate problems and on related behavioural intentions, but the results cannot be explained by a simple formula. The findings differ both with respect to the various dependent variables and across different media. The fact that media do not always have a mobilizing, awareness-enhancing effect is certainly one of the most interesting results of this study.

No abstract

Based on a literature review on factors that explain media effects and previous findings on media coverage and public opinion on nuclear power, this article examines the effects of Fukushima on media coverage and public opinion in Germany in two studies. The first study uses content analysis data to analyse changes in media coverage, and the second one is based on panel survey data to examine attitude changes on an individual level. The results of both studies show changes in media coverage and public opinion on nuclear power. Furthermore, the second study reveals that individual attitude changes cannot necessarily be explained by the same factors as the distribution of attitudes.

The emergence, use, and, in recent years, withdrawal from nuclear energy have stirred political controversies in numerous countries worldwide. These controversies have involved politicians, industry representatives, scientists, environmental organizations, and the wider public. Arguments promoting or criticizing nuclear energy ranged from the security of the energy supply over the technology's cost-effectiveness to concerns about global warming, health risks and terror threats. Switzerland has witnessed similar debates in the past and is a particularly interesting case for analysis because it features a strong direct democracy that has given its citizens a direct say on the use of nuclear energy (Vatter, 2009). Since five nuclear power plants were commissioned in Switzerland between 1969 and 1984, several referenda were held on nuclear energy. In 1979 and 1984, initiatives aiming to prevent the construction of new nuclear plants were rejected. In 1990, following the Chernobyl accident, 55% of Swiss voters accepted a moratorium on the construction of further nuclear plants, although 53% were against a general withdrawal from the technology. 1 In 2003, the Swiss opted to lift the moratorium and new plants were discussed when the Fukushima accident occurred in March 2011. Immediately, Federal Councilor Doris Leuthard halted discussions about new plants, and, two months later, the Federal Council opted for a long-term phase-out according to which existing power plants will not be replaced after their operating periods end between 2019 and 2034 (Handelszeitung, 2011, May 25). Since then, the focus of the Swiss political and public debate has shifted from whether to phase out nuclear power to the terms and timeline of such a phase-out. In 2015, the Swiss Green Party initiated the "Nuclear Withdrawal Initiative", targeting a rapid phase-out and a cut in the existing plants' operating times from 50 to 45 years. On November 2016, however, 54% of the electorate voted against the initiative-a surprising result, as experts and early

No abstract