Disrupting polarized discourses: Can we get out of the ruts of environmental conflicts?

Abstract

Polarization in environmental conflicts obstructs decision making at all scales. The Australian state of Tasmania has a history of intense polarization around environmental issues. This article uses a social study of citizens of the capital, Hobart, and a case study of a recent attempt to disrupt polarization about forestry in Tasmania, to develop a novel conceptualization of ‘ruts’ in environmental conflicts. Ruts are formed when polarizing social constructs gain a momentum that perpetuates entrenched discourse coalitions and storylines into subsequent issues. This is evidenced in attitudinal survey results, and in interviews that show how storylines from the forestry debate frame people’s responses to climate change. The case study describes negotiations in the forestry conflict that had some success in disrupting these polarized discourses. After the long-term failure of the traditional authorities of government and science to resolve conflict over Tasmania’s forests, a sub-political process emerged to directly renegotiate a shared definition of risk. The study shows that new coalitions of players from outside traditional systems of authority have the potential to disrupt polarized discourses, through the creation of shared storylines. The challenge is to be prepared to acknowledge the legitimacy of divergent values, and to seek framings that sidestep, rather than confront strongly held conflicting values. Insights from this article are likely to be of value for other environmental conflicts, including climate change.

Concerning values: what underlies public polarisation about climate change?

“…Aspirations to preserve Tasmania's traditional extractive industries of forestry and mining are also implicated in the values of security and tradition prioritised by the unconcerned. The desire for freedom to exploit the island's highly protected natural resources, some of which have been the subject of controversial challenges forests within Tasmania's World Heritage Area, may be part of the context for the strength of association between self‐direction and unconcern about climate change (Lucas & Warman, ). The desire to continue to make use of climate‐changing natural resources is also evident in the wider Australian context, as governments and communities wrestle with the economic consequences of the end of the resources boom (Gibson et al ., ).…”

“…This debate is evident, for example, in local media (Tranter, ) and in the proliferation of conflicting political car bumper stickers (Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, ). Polarising narratives developed during environmental conflicts over hydro‐electric dams and forestry from the 1960s to the 1980s persist, colouring the debate about climate change (Lucas & Warman, ). While the context of this polarisation is specific, polarised responses to climate change are patterns repeated in varying local contexts across the globe, and the study thus offers local insights extensible and relevant to this global phenomenon.…”

“Tied to the Land”: Climate Change Activism Among U.S. Hunters and Fishers

“…Furthermore, sportsman climate activists use a number of rhetorical strategies to explicitly challenge the polarization of climate change views within the hunting and fishing community. An analysis of the discursive practices of climate activists within this politicallyconservative group can add to understandings of ways in which political polarization can be disrupted (Lucas and Warman, 2018) and new political subjectivities can be created around climate change action in the rural western United States.…”

Cutting the Cake of Science and Policy

“…14 In recent years we have seen the public dismissal of 'experts' by some politicians and campaigners, and widespread concerns that many countries, including the UK, are entering a 'post-truth era', in which science itself is becoming politically polarised. 15 Most famously, this has been in relation to the US Trump administration's hostility to science and environmental interests: of more relevance to badger/bTB would be the pro-Brexit politician (and current Secretary of State for Defra) Michael Gove's 2016 comment that 'people in this country have had enough of experts'. 16 Given these changes-including several transitions back and forth between Conservative and Labour governments-the persistence of the 'authoritative expert' bTB review in the face of ongoing controversy requires explanation.…”