The politicization of climate change: problem or solution?

Abstract

In the academic literature, two perspectives can be distinguished regarding the climate debate. The dominant consensus-building perspective problematizes the politicization of climate change as an important barrier to climate action and resultantly sets out to develop depoliticizing communication strategies which foster social consensus and public engagement. In contrast to this, the critical debate perspective problematizes climate change's capture in a depoliticized consensus and calls for its repoliticization to revive democratic debate and citizenship. The aim of this article is twofold. First, we will distinguish both perspectives on the basis of their diverging problem diagnoses and recommendations. Second, we will argue how only the critical debate perspective provides the tools for transformative socioecological change based on both democratic debate and democratic citizenship. We conclude by discussing how this divergence is reflective of a larger split in the social sciences between problem-solving and critical theory and how social scientists could contribute to democratic debate and citizenship.

Post-politics contested: Why multiple voices on climate change do not equal politicisation

“…In his book Climate Change and Society, Urry (2011: 90) calls the diagnosis that our current era would be post-political a 'new orthodoxy', thereby going against an expanding stream of literature arguing that predominant discourses on climate change are profoundly depoliticised (Bettini 2013;Goeminne 2012; Kenis and Lievens, 2014;MacGregor 2014;Machin 2013;Maeseele 2015;Pepermans and Maeseele 2016;Swyngedouw 2007;. In contrast to this 'post-political thesis', Urry (2011: 91) argues there actually exists a broad range of different types of climate politics, 'and it is odd to write them all off as only "post-political"'.…”

“…The Green Economy project supports market mechanisms in order to tackle climate change, arguing that this will not only help realising a sustainability transition, but will also create plenty of economic opportunities. This amounts to a peculiar means-ends reversal whereby tackling climate change is presented as the royal road to overcoming the problems and crises of the market (Kenis and Lievens, 2015;2016). To the extent Climate Justice Action refers to climate change as a way to promote system change and climate justice, it does something similar, albeit with the opposite goal: climate change becomes the starting point for putting the anti-capitalist struggle on the agenda again.…”

Fracturing Debate? A Review of Research on Media Coverage of “Fracking”

“…"Politicization" is used here to explain a general process whereby sets of stakeholders act, and interact, to define and voice claims about fracking as an issue, including in this case: (i) politicians (ii) industry, (iii) interest groups and (iv) local protesters (Hansen, 2011). This meaning differs from a more specific use of politicization found elsewhere that recognizes efforts to problematise issues (such as is observed in the activities of the countermovement of fossil fuel interests operating in the climate change issue-see Pepermans and Maeseele, 2016). These facets of the politicization of fracking provide a context to understand the media's interest in, and reporting of, the issue.…”

Politics and Climate Change: Exploring the Relationship Between Political Parties and Climate Issues in Latin America

“…This conceptualization differs from others in the literature on climate change politics that tend to associate the term politicization with specific political positions towards climate change. For example, from critical approaches or perspectives the term politicization is used to refer to positions that problematize the current model of development and promote radical changes at the political, social and economic level in order to face the challenges posed by climate change (Pepermans and Maeseele, 2016). Instead, we used the concept of politicization in a broader manner; it is not reduced to, or depends on the radicalism of the political position taken by political actors, but rather on the relevance that the issue has on the political agenda of these actors.…”