U.S. Congressional Conceptions U.S. Congressional Conceptions of Climate Change: of Climate Change:

An Interpretivist ApproachAn Interpretivist ApproachJosh GellersJosh Gellers

University of California, IrvineUniversity of California, Irvine

American Political Science Association Annual MeetingAmerican Political Science Association Annual MeetingAugust 28, 2008August 28, 2008

Research Motivations Foreshadowing Richness Transparency Filling a critical void

Literature Review Yin (1999) Pielke (2007) Brulle (1996) Johnson (2000) Agnone (2007)

Main Research Questions What types of

distortions does climate science undergo during the policy process?

How do members of Congress frame the climate change debate?

Source: nazret.com

?

Ancillary Research Questions What are the differences/similarities in terms of scientific

understanding and communicative strategies between both sides of the climate debate in Congress?

Does it appear as though certain representatives are more agenda driven or allegiance driven?

Are the frames presented necessarily contradictory or can they be complementary?

How is science used to advance a particular agenda? What suggestions can be offered that serve to restructure

or refocus the discussions so as to increase the likelihood of agreement or progress?

Method and Objective Interpretive/textual analysis

Elite conceptions of climate science and the scope of the climate change debate

Discrete frames pertaining to climate change

Procedure 1) Use THOMAS research service from the Library of

Congress to sift through Congressional Record 2) Search for phrase “climate change” as it appears in

documents from 110th Congress 3) Review each document listed (at least on the first page of

results) cognizant of the fact that results appear in descending order of the degree of “match” with the key terms

4) Select those documents which feature either a) sufficient length worthy of analysis, b) a diversity of opinions expressed, or c) both.

Procedure Analyze:

Scientific information Stakeholder allegiance Frames

Categorize rhetoric according to frames employed

Climate Change Frames

National Security Economy Environment

Sources Congressional Record:

Save Our Climate Act Low Carbon Economy Act Senate Resolution 30 Climate Change Global Climate Change Legislation Global Warming Alarmists

Results Both parties misuse climate science

Omission, bias, anecdotes v. consensus, false analogy, misattribution, and reductionism

Democrats: Quick to gloss over science, move to frames Rely more on imagery

Republicans: Refer to outliers within the scientific community Resort to unqualified discrediting of sources, guilt by

association (IPCC and UN)

Allegiances Elites from coal states are more explicit

Frame Analysis

012345678

U.S. asEnvironmental

Leader

MoralImperative

Protecting theEconomy

NationalSecurity

Frame Employed

Frequencyof Citation

Recommendations 1) More oversight should be used when

preparing policies on science-dependent issues such as climate change.

2) Frames reveal a complexity of interests and thus efforts should be made to accommodate multiple perspectives during the policymaking process.

Areas for Improvement Climate science:

Objective evaluation, avoiding normative charges Associational claims (i.e. Al Gore and IPCC)

Frames: Mutually exclusive or complementary? More (dichotomized) frames

Institutionalist v. Individualist, Short-term v. Future-oriented Utility of employing certain frames over others

Allegiances: Important or tautological?

Future Research Directions Refine methodology

Rigor v. richness Study 111th Congress

Prescribe unified approach to understanding elite rhetoric Address larger issues pertaining to democracy

Should a leader elected to represent his or her constituents do what is in the best interests of the people or act in the long-term interest of preserving the environment?

What is the role of scientists and science in the policy process? Analyze tension between economic realities and

environmental imperatives Conduct comparative analyses

Questions or Comments?