Communicating Climate Change Democratically Across the ... · Communicating Climate Change...

Presented at Bridging Divides: Spaces of Scholarship and Practice in Environmental Communication

The Conference on Communication and Environment, Boulder, Colorado, June 11-14, 2015

https://theieca.org/coce2015

Communicating Climate Change Democratically Across the Great

(Ideological) Divide

Dr. Pepermans Yves, University of Antwerp

Prof. Dr. Maeseele Pieter, University of Antwerp

Contact information:

Yves Pepermans

Department of Communication Studies

Room S.M.471

Sint - Jacobstraat 2

2000 Antwerpen

Belgium

[email protected]

T ++3232655396


mailto:[email protected]

of 121




Abstract

Over the course of the past four decades, climate change has transformed from a purely scientific

issue into what international leaders like Barack Obama and Ban Ki-Moon have claimed to be the

biggest challenge of the 21th century. However, on its route through culture, politics and media,

climate change has taken on various ideological meanings which are used to advance (conflicting)

political projects. As a consequence, it confronts democracies with various new and old challenges.

This paper explains how journalists and media scholars can contribute to a broad, democratic,

ideologically-pluralist debate about climate change and evaluates media in Flanders, the Dutch

speaking region of Belgium, on the extent to which it encourages such debate. It examines the

news coverage about four international climate summits COP 6, COP 6 bis 12 & 18) and two IPCC

Assessment Reports in two Flemish generalist, elite newspapers (De Standaard & De Morgen) and

one alternative news website (DeWereldMorgen) through a critical discourse analysis. Special

attention is paid to the presence of either depoliticizing or politicizing discursive strategies, which

are assumed to limit or broaden the scope for ideologically-pluralist debate. The findings reveal

three distinct ideological cultures which start from different ideological standpoints about the role

of the state in the governance of technology, the economy and international relations. The

ideological cultures identified in the elite newspapers De Morgen and De Standaard differ in terms

of ideological preferences, supporting either an international regulatory framework or a focus on

technological innovation and adaptation, respectively, but use the same depoliticizing exclusionary

mechanisms which distinguish rational and moral actors and demands from irrational and immoral

actors and demands. As a consequence, specific ideological choices are naturalized as inevitable,

rational and moral evolutions. By doing so, these newspapers limit the space for ideologically-

pluralist debate. Only within the alternative news outlet DeWereldMorgen and in the opinion

section of the newspapers, more politicizing representations of climate change are found which

highlight and problematize the role of free market capitalism and specific economic interests in

causing and responding to climate change and position these against alternatives which break with

(free) market logic. By doing so, a space is created for democratic debate between ideological

alternatives. Therefore, this paper suggests that media like DeWereldMorgen are not only

alternative in terms of ownership structures, journalistic practices or ideological preferences, but

also play a crucial role in safeguarding a broad, democratic debate. The paper ends by providing

recommendations on how both environmental communicators, journalists and academics can


https://theieca.org

of 121




contribute to the politicization of the climate change debate, which is not only a precondition for

democratic debate, but also essential for enabling socio-ecological change.


https://theieca.org

of 121




Introduction

On its route through culture, politics and media, the risks associated with climate change heat up

old and new ideological disagreements, and thus confront democracies with various challenges. The

climate change debate thus suggests a pluralism of possible responses to climate change. However,

media scholar Nisbet (2014a:180) recently observed a troubling paradox within the climate change

debate in arenas such as the news. The more divisive disagreements have become, the more each

side has turned to science, economics and other forms of technocratic expertise as the perceived

antidote to this division. Problems are framed as the consequence of the irrationality, ignorance

and immorality of the political “Other”. Yet, rather than overcoming polarization, this strategy only

seems to deepen disagreement. Similarly, Professor of Climate Change Mike Hulme, writing in The

Guardian in 2007, argued that often with climate change, genuine and necessary debates about

these wider social values masquerade as disputes about scientific truth and error. Nisbet’s and

Hulme’s claims are seem descriptive of the exceptionally polarized situation in the Anglo-Saxon

world, where both sides of the debate repress the space for disagreement and debate. Other

authors (e.g. Swyngedouw, 2010; Kenis & Lievens, 2014) go even further and argue that

mainstream discourse about climate change, with its reliance to technocratic expertise, apocalyptic

rhetoric, global context and reification of CO2 as an enemy without a social location forecloses and

disavows the space for ideological conflicts, disputes and disagreements about alternative political

programs or sustainable futures in favor of consensual, technocratic decision-making about a

limited amount of market-based policy responses which reinforce the politico-economic status quo.

The role of (news) media in such processes of depoliticization remains an open question. As

Herman & Chomsky (1988) argue in their influential Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy

of the Mass Media, from which this dissertation derived its title, media play an important role in

the perpetuation of inequalities, economic and political power relations and dominant ideologies

(e.g. the belief in economic growth as the solution for all society’s woes). We argue with Simon

Cottle (2006:17-20) and Libby Lester (2010:50-51) that Herman & Chomsky’s propaganda model is

a valuable analysis of media involvement in the processes of manufacturing consent and sustaining

hegemony, but that it is ultimately ‘unnerving’ in its generalizing, almost conspiratorial, tone and

economic reductionism, and lack of engagement with changing dynamics, contests and

contradictions that occur between and within centers of power. Journalists can provide a space for

struggles over the right to define issues (e.g. climate change) and set agendas. These spaces serve

as arenas in which claims about climate change can be interpreted, circulated and contested. On


https://theieca.org

of 121




the other hand, journalists are simultaneously players who can negotiate access, shape meaning,

circulate symbols, push for actions and contest decisions (Lester, 2010:5). As a producer of news,

journalism is “a principal convener and conveyor of conflicts, images and information, discourses

and debates” (Cottle, 2006:3). The immateriality and invisibility of climate change risks renders us

dependent on the mediations found in these arenas: not only with respect to the social definition

and revelation of these risks, but also in terms of their social contestation and social criticism

(Cottle, 1998:8). They provide us with powerful and important links between our everyday realities

and experiences, and the ways climate change is discussed by scientists, policymakers and other

public actors (Boykoff, 2011). As a consequence, they play a pivotal role in dis/empowering citizens

to get involved in various (individual and/or collective) actions with respect to climate change

(Carvalho,2010).

The question then arises whether news media are found to open the space for a democratic,

ideologically-pluralist, debate between alternative sustainable futures, or whether they contribute to

the depoliticization of climate change, by framing it as an issue amenable only by technocratic

governance and/or market forces? This question is answered through a longitudinal and

comparative critical discourse analysis of climate change coverage in two traditional newspapers

(De Standaard and De Morgen). The goals of this research are twofold. It aims to evaluate news

outlets on the extent to which they function as arenas for democratic, ideologically-pluralist debate

about climate change, and it aims to reveal how underlying ideological preferences and

assumptions about the nature of international relations shape coverage of climate science and

climate politics. This is the first ever large-scale study of representations of climate change in

Flemish media. Furthermore, since alternative media representations of climate change remain

largely under researched, we have also included one alternative news website (DeWereldMorgen) to

identify possible alternative discursive constructions of climate change. This allows us to draw

implications about the role of ideology in today’s (commercialized) newspaper landscape and about

the differences between commercial traditional news media and non-commercial, alternative news

media, and resultantly, the state of ideological pluralism and democratic debate in an important

part of the Flemish media landscape.


https://theieca.org

of 121




Research design

Data Collection

In the first exploratory phase, monthly quantitative attention to climate change was examined for

De Morgen and De Standaard. A dataset was assembled through the now defunct Belgian digital

press databank Mediargus1 by collecting all the climate change-related articles for each month

between January 2000 and December 2012, using a Boolean string which eventually consisted of

the following ten key words2: (climate change) OR (global warming) OR (greenhouse effect) OR

(greenhouse gases) OR (greenhouse gas) OR (climate summit) OR (climate conference) OR (climate

agreement) OR (climate report) OR (CO2 emissions) OR (IPCC). Given that the search results

included many articles where one of the key words was merely referred to in passing and that it

would take too much time to thoroughly read and code all these articles, data collection was

narrowed down to those articles where one of the key words was mentioned in either the headline

or lead paragraph. Therefore, the explanatory power of these findings lays in the identification of

potential trends, relative to the amount of coverage of climate change at other times, rather than

the absolute numbers of stories about climate change in each newspaper. Furthermore, it needs to

be stressed that climate change occupies only a small nook in news overall. For instance, taking a

look just at US coverage in 2009, the year in which coverage of climate change peaked to

unprecedented heights, Sartor and Page (2009) found that only 1.5% of all news coverage was

devoted to environmental issues.

The first clear peak in the coverage took place in November 2000 during COP3 6 in The Hague in

December 2000, where governments failed to reach a consensus about the implementation of the

Kyoto Protocol. The second peak took place a few months later during the reprise of this summit in

Bonn in July 2001. Between these moments, attention for climate change remained relatively high,

because of the release of the four partial reports of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC4, and

1 In February, 2014, this database was replaced by a new one, Gopress.

2 These keywords are translated from Dutch. The original keywords are: (klimaatverandering) OR (opwarming van de aarde) OR (klimaatopwarming) OR (broeikaseffect) OR (broeikasgassen) OR (broeikasgas) OR (klimaattop) OR (klimaatconferentie) OR (klimaatakkoord) OR (klimaatrapport) OR (CO2-uitstoot) OR (IPCC).

3 COP= Conference On Parties. The annual climate summits for signatories of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change.

4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


https://theieca.org

of 121




the US’ withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol. Thereafter, coverage of climate change remained low

until 2005, when the Kyoto Protocol was finally ratified and when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans

and flooded the city. The release of Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, one month

before the start of COP12 in Nairobi in 2006 kick started a “climate hype” of unprecedented media

coverage and political attention. This peak in media attention continued throughout 2007, following

the release of the four parts of the Fourth IPCC Assessment and the awarding of the Nobel Prize

for Peace to Al Gore and the IPCC. Then coverage decreased again for a while, only to increase to

its highest peak ever at the end of 2009, for COP 15 in Copenhagen. The outcome of the summit

failed to live up to the inflated expectations of the media and media attention went into a

downward spiral after that, only to peak, albeit to a lesser extent, during the annual climate

summits in Cancun, Durban and Doha. Especially De Standaard, after 2009, does not consider

climate change stories to be very newsworthy anymore.


https://theieca.org

of 121




Figure 1: Coverage of climate change in De Morgen and De Standaard from January 2000 to March 2013


https://theieca.org

of 121




Selection of News Outlets

For the analysis of news coverage, two Flemish generalist, elite newspapers were selected: De

Morgen and De Standaard. These newspapers are elitist in the sense that their readership is

characterized by relatively higher income and education levels. Both outlets are the ‘quality

newspapers’ of one of the two remaining Flemish print media groups. Furthermore, both

newspapers also have different ideological roots. De Morgen, owned today by De Persgroep, is the

heir of two socialist newspapers, De Vooruit and De Volksgazet. It still characterizes itself as a

progressive newspaper, which aims “to go against the current” (Goovaerts, 2014). De Standaard,

owned by Het Mediahuis, used to have a pronounced catholic and pro-market editorial line, but

characterizes itself today as a ‘centrist’ quality newspaper (De Bens & Raeymaeckers, 2010). In 2013,

De Morgen and De Standaard, had an average daily circulation of respectively, 53.429 and 100.769

(CIM, 2014a), and a reach of, respectively, 251.000 (CIM, 2014b) and 360.000 readers (CIM, 2014c).

Although these circulation numbers are considerably lower than those of the so-called popular

newspapers (e.g. Het Laatste Nieuws, Het Nieuwsblad), elite newspapers are generally preferred in

content analytical studies because they have an important agenda-setting function for the public

and other media (Carvalho, 2007:226). Elite newspapers are also assumed to be primary influences

on policy discourse and decision-making at national and international levels (Carvalho & Burgess

2005:1460; Boykoff, 2011:89). Often linked to this is the argument of a vertical spread of news

stories within the news hierarchy (Maeseele & Schuurman, 2008:442; Nisbet & Lewenstein, 2002:

371). Others argue that elite press sources have a reputation for traditionally higher-quality

reporting, and most importantly, with journalists who specialize in environmental affairs (Doyle,

2002). Furthermore, elite newspapers today are characterized by elaborate opinion pages, whose

explicit aim is to accommodate a certain diversity and pluralism of voices and viewpoints.


https://theieca.org

of 121




Critical Discourse Moments

Table 1: Critical discourse moments

This frequency distribution of media attention was used to make a selection of case studies for the

qualitative content analysis of the newspapers’ coverage of climate change. These case studies

thereby serve as critical discourse moments. These are topical events which potentially challenge

existing discursive positions and constructs or, in contrast, may contribute to their further

sedimentation (Carvalho, 2005:6). The selected case studies are: COP 6, COP 12 and COP 18, and

the release of the Third and Fourth IPCC report. The coverage of the climate summits and climate

reports was compared over time to examine how the newspapers’ discursive positions were

confirmed, challenged or elaborated. These moments were selected, because the frequency

distribution showed that they were deemed relatively important, in terms of number of articles, by

both De Morgen and De Standaard and thus allowed for a proper comparative-synchronic analysis

(simultaneous analysis of the same event covered by different media). Moreover, by analyzing three

similar cases (three COP’s and two IPCC reports) with an interval of on average six years, this case

selection is expected to serve a historical-diachronic analysis well (analysis of coverage in one

medium over time). News coverage about COP 15 in Copenhagen, the critical discourse moment

First period (2000 - 2001)

- COP 6 The Hague

- IPCC III

- COP 6bis Bonn

Second period (2006 - 2007)

- COP 12 Nairobi

- IPCC IV

- Nobel Peace Prize

Third period (October - January

2011)

COP 18 Doha


https://theieca.org

of 121




with the highest amount of media attention, was collected, but eventually not included in the

analysis due to time restraints.

Across the globe, media attention for climate change peaks during these events (Boykoff, 2011).

These UN climate summits are not only the most important climate events in terms of media and

political attention, but can also be said to constitute a particular, transnational public arena in

which global and national social organizations are found to interact with representatives of both

national and international political institutions. This temporary concentration of political power,

flows of information and knowledge production can be considered as a temporary global public

arena (Eide, Kunelius & Kumpu, 2010; Eide & Ytterstad, 2011), which is however inevitably affected

by processes of domestication by the national media that report on them.

Collecting News Articles

In April-May, 2013, these articles were collected through Mediargus using the same Boolean search

string as for the frequency distribution. To make sure all articles were included, the search query

was for each case elaborated with a key word related to the event or city in which the event was

held (e.g. COP 6; The Hague). Articles were included if one of the key words was mentioned in

either the headline or lead, or if at least one paragraph was devoted to a climate change related

theme. All sorts of articles were collected, such as news reports, interviews, editorials, television

announcements and op-eds, except for readers’ letters. To make sure relevant articles were

included which do not include one of the key words, data collection was combined with a manual

search in the paper versions of De Morgen and De Standaard within the designated data collection

periods. This took a few weeks of extra data collection, but allowed us to come to the most

complete dataset as possible.

Articles were collected starting one month before the beginning of the event to one month after

the end of it. For the climate summits, all articles were included, including those that were not

specifically related the event. For instance, because COP6 in The Hague took place between 13 and

24 November 2000, all relevant newspapers articles between 13 October and 24 December 2000,

were included. The data collection for the coverage about the release IPCC reports was slightly

different. Because these reports appear in four separate stages: three working groups and a

synthesis report (, the rule to include all relevant articles from one month before the beginning of

the event to one month after the end could lead to a data collection period of eight months,

consisting mostly of articles that have nothing to do with the release of the IPCC reports. Therefore,


https://theieca.org

of 121




to keep the qualitative analysis feasible, data collection was limited to articles related to the direct

release of the reports. For an overview of the collected articles, please see table 4 on the following

page.

De Morgen De Standaard DeWereldMorgen

COP 6 27 24

IPCC 3 WG-I 1 1

IPCC 3 WG-II 1 1

IPCC 3 WG-III 1 1

IPCC 3 Synthesis 4 1

COP 6bis 19 22

COP 12 73 70

IPCC 4 WG-I 12 13

IPCC 4 WG-II 9 8

IPCC 4 WG-III 6 6

IPCC 4 Synthesis 5 2

Nobel Prize 8 4

COP 18 89 23 45

Total 255 176 45

Table 2: Overview of collected news articles per critical discourse moment


https://theieca.org

of 121




Data Analysis

Introduction: Critical Discourse Analysis

Most studies which examine media representations of climate change rely on quantitative methods,

which generally aim at identifying the frequency of predefined thematic categorizations, mostly

defined as “frames” (Dirikx & Gelders, 2010; McComas & Shanahan, 1999; Nisbet, 2009; Takahashi

& Meisner, 2012). According to Carragee and Roefs (2004), many of these framing studies limit the

analysis of news to the mere identification of story topics and themes, or to predicting audience

responses and media effects on public opinion. By neglecting the power context from which frames

originate, these fail to reveal processes of power and ideology in the construction of meaning.

Furthermore, a quantitative framing analysis would be less suitable as it is difficult to operationalize

de/politicization as a frame and code and count it. Analyzing de/politicization is very similar to

what Olausson (2009:424-425) understands as the examination of the discursive de/construction of

hegemonic meanings as common sense to study the connection between media representations

and ideological hegemony. She argues that such a goal requires qualitative rather than quantitative

text analysis, which enables a context-sensitive and deepened exploration, fruitful for the study of

meaning construction.

Therefore, we opted for Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which compared to (both quantitative

and qualitative) framing analysis allows for a richer examination of the resources used in any type

of text for producing meaning, putting a stronger emphasis on language and on the relation

between discourse and particular social, political and cultural contexts (Carvalho, 2007:227). In this

subsection, we will unpack and elaborate upon the three central categories of this approach and by

doing so explain why we opted for this method to analyze news discourse.

The approach deserves the adjective critical, because it is preoccupied with the creation and

reproduction of relations of power, assuming that discourses not only (re-) shape power relations

and social systems, but that these are also simultaneously shaped by them (Carvalho, 2008;

Fairclough, 1995; Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002). The aim of CDA is to uncover the implicit or taken for

granted values, assumptions, and origins of a seemingly neutral, self-evident, and objective news

text, and relate these to structures of dominance and power (Olausson, 2009:429). Critical Discourse

analyzes allows to examine the extent to which the media contribute for a substantive

democratization of society or, conversely, for the legitimization of existing power relations

(Fairclough,1995). It is thus politically committed to emancipation, democracy and social change,


https://theieca.org

of 121




which directly connects with the ambition of this dissertation to analyze the climate change debate

from a risk-conflict perspective.

The central research object is discourse, which we conceptualize with Howarth (2000:9) as a

historically specific system of meaning which forms the identities of subjects and objects. He sees

them as concrete systems of social relations and practices that are intrinsically ideological, as their

formation involves the construction of antagonism and the drawing of political frontiers between

‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’. CDA starts from a mild form of social constructivism, as it assumes that

the ‘Real’ and ‘discourse’ are mutually constitutive, assuming that objects really exist, but are only

given meaning through discourse (e.g. newspaper texts, television broadcasts, films, etc.). For

instance, the events surrounding hurricane Katrina did occur and cannot be reduced to language,

but whether these events were either represented as the failure of a neoliberalizing state to protect

its citizens in a context of global climate change, or as an illustration of moral decay in the face of

natural disasters, depends on discourse and entails radically different political assumptions and

consequences.

Critical Discourse Analysis then involves the analysis of “talk and text in context” (van Dijk: 1988).

Within the school of CDA, there is a variety of methods and strands which go beyond the scope of

this thesis. We opted for Carvalho’s innovative methodological framework of CDA (2005, 2007,

2008), which builds further on the work of the most prominent representatives of this branch of

discourse analysis (van Dijk, 1988; Fairclough, 1995; Wodak, 1999). It was specifically developed to

identify the ideological culture of British newspapers on the basis of an analysis of news coverage

about climate change. It has also been successfully applied in previous, empirical studies inspired

by the risk conflicts perspective which examined processes of de/politicization (Maeseele, 2013b;

Maeseele et al, 2014a; Raeijmaekers & Maeseele, 2014). Contextually, the analysis focuses on a

comparative-synchronic axis (simultaneous depiction of climate change in different news outlets)

and a historical-diachronic axis (temporal sequences and evolutions). At the level of text, i.e. the

individual newspaper article which is the primary unit of analysis, the framework consists of six

accumulative steps. These will be elaborated on in the following subsections.

Structural Organization & Lay-out

First, the articles were scanned for their structural organization and lay-out, paying attention to the

section, heading, page, total number of words of the articles and whether it was accompanied by

visual elements. These different attention points tell something about the editorial evaluation of a


https://theieca.org

of 121




specific article and the issue in general. Especially the headline and the lead paragraph deserve

close attention, because they mark the preferred reading of the whole article and have implications

for the audience’s perception of the issue (Carvalho, 2008:167).

Objects of Discourse

The second step entailed the identification of the object of discourse. In other words, what events,

issues and themes were linked to climate change and from which angle was the issue tackled (e.g.

the weather, the economy, politics, justice, etc.)? The analysis of COP 6, COP 12 and COP 18 was

found to be structured around different objects of discourse: (i) climate science and the physical

causes and consequences of climate change; (ii) the international negotiations and (iii) national

climate politics, which eventually inspired the structure of the media analysis.

Subjects of Discourse

The third step focused on the actors or subjects of discourse. An essential aspect in the study of

actors is their perceived influence in shaping the meaning of news and the terms of the debate,

which is an important form of social influence. This can be done by examining the framing power

of actors, i.e. “the capacity of one actor to convey his/her views and positions through the media,

by having them represented by journalists either in the form of quotes or regular text” (Carvalho,

2008: 168). Powerful actors are eventually able to structure (i.e. set the terms of the debate) a

newspaper’s climate change discourse or even end the debate in favor of a consensual discourse

(Carvalho, 2008:165).

Language and Rhetoric Elements

Language and rhetoric elements were examined, by paying attention to key concepts, tropes, tone

and tense use. For instance, whether a specific actor is described as a ‘climate criminal’ or ‘climate

champion’ says a lot about a journalist’s or quoted actor’s evaluation of this actor and particular

policy choices. Another example of how language elements shape meaning lays in the use of

tenses. Foust & O’Shannon Murphy (2009:157) argue that the use of the verbs, ‘is’, ‘will’ and ‘could’,

or the use of the present, future or conditional tense, calls attention to variations in human agency.

On the one hand, representing global warming through the verb ‘could’ frees space for human

action, as events and evolutions are represented as consequences of decisions which are still

alterable. On the other hand, asserting that specific physical consequences of climate change or

societal responses are happening or will occur, reduces the potential for human intervention,

transforming them inevitable evolutions.


https://theieca.org

of 121




Discursive Strategies

The fifth step consisted of looking for discursive strategies, i.e. forms of discursive manipulation of

reality by social actors, including journalists, in order to achieve a certain effect or goal” (Carvalho,

2008: 169), which can either be employed consciously or unconsciously. Manipulation does not

refer to subjective alteration of an objective reality, but needs to be understood as a discursive

intervention. The analysis of discursive strategies allows us to investigate how specific actors and

views are represented or framed. In this thesis framing, constructing and representing are used

interchangeably and should be understood as a process of selection and composition to organize

discourse according to a certain point of view or perspective, which is inherent to the construction

of meaning, rather than a fixed, independent category or an optional, manipulation of the truth

(Carvalho, 2008: 169). For instance, the framing of the IPCC is never an act of translation, but

always a matter of framing, i.e. a matter of selection and composition. Journalists can choose to

either endorse, challenge, balance or ignore the findings of these reports. Whether journalists or

social actors choose to highlight the most optimistic or pessimistic scenario’s, or scientific certainty

or uncertainty, leads to different discursive constructions and political implications5. In this thesis,

we are especially interested in de/politicizing discursive strategies.

Ideological Standpoints

The final step entails linking the standpoints of the newspapers to specific positions on the techno-

environmental and socio-economic fault lines, which represent competing views on the role of the

state in the governance of nature and technology and the economy, respectively. Carvalho (2007:

237) shows how these standpoints have an important influence on the (i) selection of actors, (ii)

interpretation of the causes and consequences of climate change and (iii) evaluation of policy goals

in news coverage about climate change.

Once the preferences on the respective ideological fault lines are identified, then the question is

which of these particular preferences are either depoliticized or politicized. Whether particular

ideological standpoints are depoliticized or politicized can only be decided through the

identification of patterns in news coverage. If journalists of a particular news outlet over time

5 The Fourth Assessment Report predicts a temperature rise between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (IPCC, 2007). Whether a news article a temperature predicts a rise in global temperatures by 6.4 or 1.1 °C has of course large implications.


https://theieca.org

of 121




frequently make use of discursive strategies of moralization, rationalization and naturalization in

their articles to consistently include and exclude specific actors and demands, then we can argue

that particular ideological standpoints are depoliticized. In other words, depoliticization entails the

invocation of a presumed moral and/or rational consensus (e.g. referring to the consequences for

the next generations or making claims to the scientific consensus) to position legitimate,

responsible actors and standpoints, whose underlying assumptions, values, interests are concealed,

against illegitimate, irresponsible ones. As a consequence, the former actors’ ideological preferences

about what constitutes progress on the socio-economic and/or techno-environmental fault lines are

naturalized, i.e. represented as inevitable and natural development. On the other hand, the latter

actors are excluded from democratic debate.

Alternatively, politicization can be observed through the re-occuring identification of the following

discursive strategies in news coverage: (i) the deconstruction of particular discourses by revealing

competing sets of rationality claims, values and interests underlying competing responses to

uncertainty; (ii) relating these to underlying alternative visions and (iii) by giving voice to

alternative actors and ideological standpoints, which are recognized as such. This eventually frames

climate change as the subject of a democratic debate between alternative sustainable futures.

The grouping of a news outlet’s ideological standpoints and de/politicizing strategies, were then

the final steps to identify an news outlet’s ideological culture (e.g. a neoliberal, Promethean

depoliticized ideological culture).

Fault Lines

To be able to distinguish which ideological preferences and assumptions are de/politicized, it is

imperative to first identify the ideological fault lines at stake. Ideological fault lines represent a

struggle between competing analyses about what constitutes progress with regards to specific

ideological referents (Carvalho, 2007), such as nature or the economy. We found two fault lines to

play a central role in the cases of GM food and climate change: a techno-environmental and socio-

economic fault line. The techno-environmental fault line concerns competing analyses of society’s

relationship with nature, and the role of science and technology in society and nature more

specifically. On the one hand, one might promote a ‘Promethean’ (Carvalho, 2007) discourse, which

conceptualizes nature as a benign resource which can be mastered and exploited for material

development and economic growth through unlimited techno-scientific progress. On the other


https://theieca.org

of 121




hand, one might promote a precautionary, ecologist discourse, which conceptualizes nature as

fragile and which emphasizes the limits of techno-scientific mastery and exploitation as well as

economic growth with regards to the earth’s carrying capacity. The socio-economic fault line

represents competing analyses of the role of the market in both society and science. One might

promote a neoliberal, non-regulatory approach driven by values of market liberalism, individual

freedom and profitability, which assumes that economic progress, in terms of both the generation

of ‘goods’ and the handling of ‘bads’, is best achieved through the use of market forces. On the

other hand, one might promote an interventionist approach based on values of public

accountability, equity and social responsibility, which prioritizes democratic freedom over economic

freedom and stresses that an adequate and just response to environmental problems requires

active government intervention in the economy to regulate the ‘bads’ and redistribute the ‘goods’.


https://theieca.org

of 121




Results

Introduction

This chapter presents the results of a critical discourse analysis of climate change coverage by two

traditional newspapers (De Standaard and De Morgen) and one alternative news website

(DeWereldMorgen) in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium. The analysis aims to reveal

ideological preferences and dynamic processes of de/politicization in news about climate science

and climate politics. This allows for an evaluation of news discourses on the extent to which

democratic debate between alternative socio-economic and/or techno-environmental futures is

encouraged or impeded.

This chapter is subdivided in three critical discourse periods which subsequently consist of several

critical discourse moments (CDM’s). These CDM’s are either climate summits or the release of IPCC-

reports. The first period consists of COP 6 in The Hague, the Third IPCC report and COP 6bis in

Bonn (2000-2001). The second period consists of COP 12 in Nairobi and the Fourth IPCC report

(2006-2007). The last period consists of COP 18 in Doha (2011). The chapter follows a chronological

order, with consistent subsections for climate summits and IPCC reports. For each climate summit,

we subsequently discuss the framing of the science and politics of climate change. First, news

coverage is examined by focusing on the way(s) scientific knowledge is used to construct climate

change and how scientific reports are interpreted with regards to their assessment of the causes,

consequences and time-frames of climate change. Second, news coverage is examined by focusing

on the way(s) political responses regarding climate change are framed, with subsections on the

evaluation of (i) the negotiation process and various proposed courses of action, (ii) the leading

actors and how they are positioned in terms of heroes, villains or victims, and (iii), the national role

with regards to both the summit and climate policies. For each IPCC report, we discuss the framing

of the separate Working Group and Synthesis Reports chronologically. Fragments of the various

articles were selected to represent the patterns of the news outlets and to illustrate how particular

discursive processes take place. It is important to note that all these excerpts were translated from

Dutch. This translation process inevitably led to a degree of interpretation by the author. Each

critical discourse period concludes with a summary section in which we synthesize the identified

discursive patterns. This implies that there will be some repetition over the different sections.

Whereas the first period aims to identify the existing patterns or discursive positions, the second


https://theieca.org

of 121




and third periods examine whether these patterns are confirmed, challenged or elaborated. In the

general discussion, the comparative-synchronic and historical-diachronic findings are (i) grouped

and positioned on ideological fault lines, (ii) related to underlying world views and paradigms of

international relations, and (iii), identified as ideological cultures. These ideological cultures are

subsequently evaluated on the extent to which they are found to de/politicize climate change, and

as a result, impede or encourage democratic debate by closing down or opening up the space for

legitimate conflict between alternative problem definitions and courses of action.

COP 6 The Hague: November 2000

Introduction

The UNFCCC was established in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro and aims to “stabilize greenhouse gas

concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic

interference with the climate system” (UNFCCC, 1992). Each year, government representatives meet

to discuss international climate policy at the COP. At the third climate summit in 1997, the parties

agreed on the (in)famous Kyoto protocol which binds signatory industrialized countries to decrease

their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 %, compared to 1990 levels. The Kyoto

protocol would only come into force if it was ratified by at least 55 countries, which account in

total for at least 55 % of the total carbon dioxide emissions of industrialized countries in 1990.

During the following climate summits, the signatories of the Kyoto protocol clashed on the exact

implementation rules. According to Giddens (2011) and Connolly & Smith (2003) the main aim of

COP 6, which took place between 13 and 24 November 2000 in The Hague, was to agree on the

implementation of the Kyoto protocol. Industrialized countries failed to find an agreement about

the regulation of an international cap and trade mechanism and the offsetting6 of reduction targets

through the protection of forests and other carbon sinks.

In the weeks surrounding the summit, De Morgen publishes 27 articles on climate change. Dirk

Bogaert, a science journalist, writes 17 articles and is the leading journalist on climate change for

the newspaper. Hans Van Scharen, a foreign affairs journalist, writes another four articles on the

summit. The data collection also includes one op-ed, one column, and four articles by journalists

who only write one article about climate change. De Standaard devotes 24 articles on the issue

6 A carbon offset is a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide made in order to compensate for or to offset an emission made elsewhere.


https://theieca.org

of 121




within this period. Antoon Wouters, a foreign affairs journalist, is the leading journalist for this

newspaper, writing 18 out of 24 articles. The rest of the articles consists of press releases, an

editorial and op-eds.

Table 3: Amount of newspaper articles about COP 6 The Hague in De Morgen and De Standaard

Climate science and the physical causes and consequences of climate change

7 out of 27 articles in De Morgen establish a causal link between climate change and actual and

future physical consequences through a discursive strategy of ontologization: this ascribes an

abstract, intangible phenomenon, such as climate change, with physical characteristics to make it

comprehensible and tangible (Olausson, 2011: 285). This is frequently done by linking climate

change to weather changes as the following headlines show: “Greenhouse effect will make Belgium

shiver7”; “Nasa: ’Coming years thirty percent more storms’8”; “Increasing amount of storms also

threatens insurance business9”; “A North European shower on a hot South European plate 10”;

“European climate report predicts rain. Belgium is becoming increasingly wet11”. These links are

authorized by stressing the credibility and importance of the involved “scientists” and “experts”,

calling one study “the most trustworthy work document for weather predictions the coming years12”,

7 Serneels, 25/10/2000, p.18 8 Bogaert, 31/10/2000, p.1

9 Bogaert, 31/10/2000, p.6

10 Bogaert, 3/11/2000, p.8

11 Bogaert, 7/11/2000, p.20

12 Bogaert, 7/11/2000, p.20

Total

number of

articles

Regular

news

articles

Front-page

articles Editorials

Op-eds &

columns

De Morgen 27 22 3 0 2

De Standaard 24 19 1 1 3


https://theieca.org

of 121




or by highlighting the prestigious nature of a scientific institution such as NASA in the headline of

an article. Another article cites “climate refugees” from actual climate catastrophes all over the

world: “According to the elderly, it is the will of God. Flooding islands, paralyzing ice storms and

days long hurricanes13”. Similarly, in “Island inhabitants are running from the sea14” the governor of

the York Island in the Pacific Ocean, an archipelago on the brink of flooding, is cited. In these

seven articles, climate change is dramatized as a problem of the present and near future.

Furthermore, the links between climate change and various consequences are written in the simple

future or simple present, rather than the present conditional, expressing the certainty and urgency

of the catastrophic effects. Scientific uncertainty about both the causes and consequences of

climate change is absent: climate science is represented as unified and consensual. The mutual

framing of scientific certainty, weather references and dangerous consequences serves as a

discursive strategy to problematize climate change and legitimize action against climate change

risks.

It is remarkable that most of these articles focus on the consequences of climate change, but

ignore the underlying societal causes. As a consequence, climate change is represented as a

problem in nature in these articles, while it remains disassociated from structural patterns of

consumption and production and associated power relationships. The solution then lies in the

elimination of climate change, rather than in challenging the techno-environmental and/or socio-

economic system that produces it. Only one of these articles mentions the causes of climate

change and this happens in only two sentences: “Humans who are living in a true waste society

since 1960, are unconsciously the ‘true offenders’ of the climatologic calamities. Eighty percent of

global warming is caused by mankind 15”. In this quote, a homogenized and universalized account

of humanity (“humans”, “mankind”), obfuscating social conflicts and inequalities, is positioned

against an ‘externalized ’Them’ (“the climatologic calamities”), implying that the causes of climate

change lay in immoral behaviors or offenses of the former, rather than the techno-environmental

and/or socio-economic systems that shape such behaviors. As a consequence, climate change is

represented not only as a certain, largely anthropogenic and urgent issue, but also as a moral

issue (for more information about the moralization of climate change see p.37).

13 Van Scharen, 16/11/2000, p.2

14 Marks, 01/12/2000, p.10

15 Bogaert, European climate report predicts rain. Belgium is becoming increasingly wet ,7/11/2000, p.20


https://theieca.org

of 121




The two articles focusing on climate science in De Standaard do not only ignore the reports

covered in De Morgen, but also construct climate change very differently. In “Flipping a coin with

the climate16”, which is published as a one-pager in the science section and announced on the

front-page, Wouters, the newspaper’s leading journalist on climate change, deproblematizes climate

change as a matter of scientific uncertainty, as both the article title and the following text

fragments show:

It remains flipping a coin with the climate, because nothing is as unpredictable as the climate.

The scientific evidence that the emission of greenhouse gases is changing the climate is worth

billions. No scientist has ever won this price. […] The greenhouse effect and possible climate

change have set a lot of tongues wagging. There are the believers, the disbelievers and

adherents of the precautionary principle, which saves both the natural resources and the budget.

[…] Already in 1992, the Group of Heidelberg, whose composition is not bad: 72 Nobel Prize

winners and more than 4000 scientists from all over the world, warned against rushed and

expensive political measures against an unproven greenhouse effect in the Heidelberg Appeal.

[…] This is not the opinion of the IPCC. On the basis of this theory, the United Nations holds a

yearly climate conference since 1995. […] Amidst all these uncertainties, the precautionary

principle appears to be the best. Whether forests store few or much carbon dioxide, they always

have a great ecological and societal use. And saving energy pays off, every family knows that

today.

In the quote, he positions between three sets of actors. The “disbelievers”, or the signatories of the

Heidelberg appeal17, are authorized by referring to the number of scientists and Nobel prize

winners it includes. The position of the ”believers” is framed as “opinion” and “theory”, which

implies that the United Nations climate process is put forward as the least credible in this tripartite

16 20/11/2000, p.1-11

17 The Heidelberg Appeal (Salomon, 1992) was an initiative of the Global Climate Coalition. This was a front-group consisting of a coalition of fifty US trade associations and private companies representing oil, gas, coal automobile and chemical interests, which explicitly opposed (political) ecology and the discourse of sustainable development. The appeal is very clear about its preferences in its introductory statement: “We are worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, about the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress.”


https://theieca.org

of 121




construction. The differentiation of these actors in terms of “belief” in climate change sustains an

exclusively techno-scientific framing of climate change. The choice for the word “belief” is used to

delegitimize the claims of the dis/believers and legitimize the position of the newspaper as a

rational middle-way against the extremes of the “believers” and “disbelievers”. This third way is

summarized as “the precautionary principle”18, which is invoked to delegitimize both action in the

form of further anticipatory international regulation of emissions and complete inaction regarding

the reduction of greenhouse gases. Simultaneously, it also legitimizes a focus on efficiency and

forest conservation. These are two policy options which avoid the need of capping emissions

through regulation. The precautionary principle is also one of the founding principles of the

UNFCCC treaty where it is invoked to legitimize the regulation of environmental risks in the case of

scientific uncertainty. However, it is remarkable how Wouters frames the precautionary principle as

the economically rational option and distinguishes it from the UN climate process, implicitly

delegitimizing the demands of “the believers” as unaffordable. The question of course then

becomes: unaffordable for who or what? In distinguishing the affordable demands of rational actors

from unaffordable demands by irrational actors, the climate change debate is rationalized in terms

of economics, with the dichotomy affordable/unaffordable standing in for rational/irrational. This

discursive strategy of economization evaluates decisions from the perspective of potential costs for

the existing socio-political status-quo, which is thereby naturalized as normal and inevitable.

Ultimately, for Wouters, the climate change debate is an epistemic and economic matter, in which

actors and demands are legitimized as either rational or irrational.

A different assessment of climate science can be found in “Researchers sound the alarm about

coral reefs19”. In this press agency release published two weeks before the COP, a link is established

between climate change and the disappearance of coral reefs. However, this is only a small article

in the science section, which does not make any reference to the causes of climate change and is

not written by a journalist of De Standaard. Therefore, we do not consider this article as a break

from the newspaper’s discursive construction of climate change.

Climate negotiations

This section focuses on the newspapers’ representation of the political choices at stake during the

COP. In De Morgen 11 out of 27 articles, and in De Standaard 18 out of 24, focus on the

18 He also invokes the principle in Traders see loophole in ‘carbon market’, Wouters, 23/11/2000, p.7

19 AP, 30/10/2000, p.13


https://theieca.org

of 121




proceedings of the COP. This indicates a difference in journalistic choices. The former makes use of

the climate summit event to broaden the scope of climate change reporting and publish climate-

related news apart from the summit, while De Standaard frames climate change mainly as a matter

of international politics.

The COP is covered by two different journalists in De Morgen: Bogaert and Van Scharen. Bogaert is

continuously optimistic about technological developments and market mechanisms, and pessimistic

about the prospects of regulation to mitigate climate change risks. By doing this, he frames climate

change as a techno-economic problem, amenable by technological fixes such as nuclear energy

and geoengineering. While the debate on (nuclear) energy remains disassociated from news

coverage in De Standaard, Bogaert uses every opportunity to invoke a discursive strategy of

economization to legitimize the continuation of nuclear energy production, focusing on the

economic benefits of mitigation through the use of nuclear energy on the one hand and the costs

of mitigation without it on the other, with the aim of legitimizing the former and delegitimizing the

latter. In five articles, he awards representatives from various business associations framing power

to frame nuclear energy as a technology which allows to reduce greenhouse gases without

hampering economic growth and national competitiveness (“VBO20 makes a plea for new nuclear

plants 21 ”; “Plan Bureau places the government and environmental movement for a dilemma:

choosing between phasing out nuclear plants and decrease of CO2 emissions22”; “Limit CO2? Build

new nuclear plants. European entrepreneurs want to spread environmental measures over a period

of hundred years23”; “Climate summit: nuclear energy must temporarily reduce greenhouse gas

emissions24”). In these articles, an antagonism is constituted between the phasing out of nuclear

energy and the reduction of greenhouse gases to prevent catastrophic climate change. By

presenting these choices as mutually exclusive, the continuation of nuclear energy production is

represented as necessary to prevent a “climate catastrophe”. Alternative voices about nuclear

energy are absent from these articles. The following quote published in a half-pager on page two

exemplifies the re-occurring discursive strategies used to legitimize nuclear energy:

20 VBO is the Federation of Belgian Enterprises

21 13/11/2000, p.1

22 24/11/2000, p.3

23 13/11/2000, p.24

24 16/11/2000, p.28


https://theieca.org

of 121




About 15 minutes later, Fabian Tessièr, a French representative of the World Association of

Nuclear Energy, proclaimed in the Maris 1-hall of the congress building that nuclear energy is

the only energy form that allows industries to grow further and produce more, without

causing extra CO2-emissions. ‘We certainly don’t have to start from the most extreme scenario

that the scientists of the IPCC present us’, says Tessièr. ‘The constantly and always more

rapidly evolving technology is capable to eliminate the announced disaster scenarios between

now and twenty years. The economy, which is the motor of everything, has to keep on

running in the very first place. This will certainly not happen with the extreme measures-sixty

percent less CO2-emissions- that the scientists of the IPCC demand by 202025.’

In this quote, a representative of the nuclear industry is uncritically cited. He frames nuclear energy

as a clean and affordable technology. By pointing to the economic costs of emission reduction

without nuclear power and by taking economic growth as a benchmark to evaluate demands, the

choice for nuclear energy is legitimized through a discursive strategy of economization. Further

binding regulation of greenhouse gases is delegitimized as unaffordable, by framing it twice as

“extreme” and by exaggerating the emission reduction targets that are proposed by the IPCC. It is

remarkable that this quote comes from an article of which the central focus is a symbolic protest

action of environmental activists (who are generally opposed to the use of nuclear energy)

constructing a symbolic dyke to protect the conference hall from rising sea levels.

Bogaert’s Promethean technological optimism is also present in his coverage on geoengineering26.

Two weeks before the COP, he devotes a small front-page article27 and a large article in the science

section 28 to experiments with geoengineering which involve the emission of soot into the

atmosphere to counteract the increasing monetary costs of storms for insurance businesses:

British insurance companies want to invest in storm management, because damage is no

longer payable. […] ‘The Price tag will be higher than sixty million euros’, according to the Brit.

25 Doing small things on a daily basis with a great result, 20/11/2000, p.2

26 The term geoengineering has many definitions, but in this context it can be understood as the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change.

27 Nasa: coming years thirty percent more storms, 31/10/2000, p.1

28 Swelling storms are also threatening Insurance companies, 31/10/2000, p.6


https://theieca.org

of 121




We have to take global warming and climate change seriously. If we don’t do that, then most

insurance companies will go bankrupt. We know that not a single country on this planet can

meet the strict norms that are necessary. Everybody chooses for maximal material wealth in

the short term. Insurance companies have no other choice than to follow the worst-case

scenario. […] ‘The plan works in theory, but finds no mercy with environmental movements’.

In the article, the promoters of the technology from the Association of British insurers and the

Georgia Institute of Technology are awarded framing power. Geoengineering is rather innocently

and optimistically framed as “storm-management”, obfuscating the risks of geoengineering, while

the consequences of climate change (“worst-case scenario”) and the prospects of international

regulation are framed in a pessimistic way. The experiments are legitimized through a discursive

strategy of economization, comparing the monetary costs associated with climate change to those

of geo-engineering. As a result, geoengineering is put forward as an effective option to counteract

climate change. Only one sentence refers to potential protest against geo-engineering, pointing to

the lack of “mercy” amongst “environmental movements” (who remain unnamed and uncited). The

use of the word mercy implies that the position of opponents of geo-engineering, in contrast to

that of the proponents, is ideological rather than rational. In De Standaard one article is published

about geoengineering by science journalist Knip 29 about an experimental study with the iron

fertilization of oceans from the scientific journal Nature. It sheds a very different light on the

prospects of the “unorthodox” technology and focuses on its “unintended consequences”, which

are “impossible to predict”, rather than on the benefits of the technology as Bogaert does.

Bogaert is also very optimistic and positive about the prospects of carbon trading. In “Massive

trade in hot air expected. 84 countries come together to make agreements to prevent

environmental catastrophe30”, the article covering the start of the conference, Bogaert highlights a

moralizing quote by a representative of the WWF31 (“The leaders of the world have to act fast if we

want to keep life on earth possible after 2100”) to dramatize climate change and generate a sense

of urgency to legitimize action in the form of a consensus on a policy framework for carbon

29 Iron on the waves, 23/10/2000, p.14

30 13/11/2000, p.24

31 World Wildlife Fund, a global environmental NGO


https://theieca.org

of 121




trading (“in the best case, they find an agreement about three kind of measures: joint

implementation, the clean development mechanism and internal carbon trading”). Furthermore, he

cites a “climate expert” and professor in environmental technology who delegitimizes a more

regulatory approach in the form of binding domestic emission reductions as demanded by the

Kyoto protocol through a strategy of economization, putting this forward as unaffordable, because

it increases the costs for business and might decrease their profits (“Most European countries,

including Belgium, cannot meet the norm on their own territory, in economic terms […] We cannot

afford a better environment today. The environment is a luxury product in a society which

increasingly operates with extreme profit margins”). Bogaert’s choice for carbon trading over a

regulatory approach is reaffirmed the following day in three articles (including one on the front-

page) which discuss a Dutch government program to meet the national Kyoto emission reduction

target. The program subsidizes companies from all over the world to offset their emissions by

investing in environmental projects in Eastern-Europe. This quote from the leading article (“Dutch

CO2 subsidies for Belgian companies32”) exemplifies how Bogaert legitimizes carbon trading:

‘We are doing everything to encourage companies world-wide to take CO2-decreasing

emissions’. There are good reasons for the Dutch to meet their own targets by investing in

Eastern-Europe: ‘It is plainly easier to make environment investments there. The cost of labor

is much lower and the profit per produced unit much higher because of the obviously lower

taxation. Therefore, more money remains to invest in the environment.’

In the quote, the initiator of the program is uncritically cited. Dissenting voices who criticize the use

of carbon markets remain absent from the articles on the program. Using arguments about the

cost of labor, over-regulation and taxation, the delocalization of carbon reduction is legitimized as

cost-efficient from the perspective of competitiveness through a discursive strategy of

economization. This indicates a preference for market forces to deal with environmental risks,

constructing climate change as an economic problem, amenable by price incentives.

32 14/11/2000, p.14


https://theieca.org

of 121




In “The winners of today are the losers of tomorrow. Experts pessimistic: the coming years a further

warming of the planet is almost inevitable33”, Bogaert covers the end of the climate summit. In line

with his previous articles, he awards framing power to various “experts” to authorize his pessimism

about both the consequences of climate change and the capability of international regulation to

mitigate these consequences and legitimize policies which exempt businesses from regulation. This

time in the form of a responsibilization of the population through birth control, which is

represented as ‘the first requirement to save the climate”. This reformulates climate change as a

problem of population, which can be solved by lowering the population.

Different policy preferences can be found in the articles of foreign affairs journalist Van Scharen for

De Morgen. He is supportive of the international binding regulation of greenhouse gases through

the Kyoto protocol, awarding framing power to actors who are perceived to be contributing to the

negotiations. The quest for consensus stands central in his articles. On the second day of the

conference, he publishes a large interview with the Dutch social-democratic environment minister

Pronk who is also chair of the COP in “Conference president Pronk pleas for Realpolitik34”. In this

context, the term “realpolitik” is used as a discursive strategy of rationalization to differentiate

realistic, more market based “compromises”, such as “the polluter pays principle” (e.g. policy

instruments that use price incentives, such as carbon taxes and markets) from “unrealistic

expectations” of NGO’s, who demand binding restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions to come

to a global, equal carbon foot print. Pronk also frames the matter as an issue of (climate) justice.

He attributes responsibility for emission reduction to western, rich countries and supports the

principle of common, but differentiated, responsibility35 (“The West must come to a reduction of

greenhouse gases, according to Jan Pronk […] In the end, the rich countries lie at the basis of the

greenhouse effect, which is mainly threatening the Third World”). A quote of his is highlighted

under a picture of him, in which he links development policy to climate change. A similar discursive

construction is continued in “Kyoto promises to become even more hollow36”. In this article, Van

33 Bogaert, 27/11/2000, p.8

34 14/11/2000, p.28

35 This refers to a principle of international environmental law establishing that all states are responsible for addressing global environmental destruction yet not equally responsible. The principle balances, on the one hand, the need for all states to take responsibility for global environmental problems and, on the other hand, the need to recognize the wide differences in levels of economic development between states. These differences in turn are linked to the states’ contributions to, as well as their abilities to address, these problems (UNFCCC, 1992).

36 24/11/2000, p.10


https://theieca.org

of 121




Scharen cites environmental organizations who criticize Pronk’s proposal to meet the demands of

the USA for more “flexible”, deregulated cap-and-trade mechanisms, which allow developed

countries to offset their emissions in developing countries, rather than investing binding, regulatory

caps in developed countries. Van Scharen also uncritically reproduces, and thus endorses, the

demands of developing countries for climate funding from “the rich countries” to buy green

technologies and adapt to the consequences of climate change. In “Up to our necks. UN climate

conference in The Hague failed: Better no agreement than a bad agreement37”, the leading article

about the outcome in De Morgen, Van Scharen frames the Kyoto Protocol as “only the start”,

comparing its emission reduction targets to another higher “scientific” one set by the IPCC to stress

the need for further emission reductions through a discursive strategy of scientization.

Coverage about the COP in De Standaard is continuously pessimistic. On the first day of the

conference, the newspaper headlines as follows: “Climate conference starts under a bad

constellation 38”. In the introduction of this article, Wouters frames the summit as “the annual High

Mass of the United Nations where the concern about impending climate change is professed”. By

comparing the summit to religion and through the invocation of superstitious associations using

words such as ”constellation”, the UNFCCC is again mocked as a belief which impedes rational

policy making. The next day, in “Industrial countries don’t live up to their promises. What’s really

cooking about the limitation of the emission of harmful gases39”, a representative of the World

Wildlife Fund (WWF) is cited to construct an aura of pessimism and hypocrisy about the summit,

pointing to the lack of industrialized countries that have ratified Kyoto. Wouters remains critical

about the capacity of an environmental treaty in general and the ability of carbon trading in

specific, to decrease emissions. In “Traders in suits see a loophole in carbon market40” on the

foreign affairs pages, he frames the introduction of carbon markets as a development driven by

national interests (“Everybody wants to make a profit, from the industrialized countries to the Third

World”), rather than the preservation of the climate or a shift to a renewable future. His cynicism

about the summit is also illustrated in the subtitle: “climate conference produces a paper mountain

worth a small forest”. By focusing on the ecological costs of the summits, Wouters aims to

37 Van Scharen, 27/11/2000, p.8

38 Wouters, 13/11/2000, p.6

39 Wouters, 14/11/2000, p.5

40 Wouters, 23/11/2000, p.7


https://theieca.org

of 121




delegitimize the need for international regulation. He ends by describing the symbolic construction

of sand sacks, which illustrates the need for adaptation, as a good example of the “precautionary

principle or politics that we don’t regret afterwards”, affirming his preference for policies which

avoid binding regulation of greenhouse gases. In another article, he describes carbon trading as a

“rummage sale of carbon41”. Although, Wouters is cynical about carbon trading, he doesn’t give

alternatives to mitigate climate change risks. “Selling hot air. The struggle against the greenhouse

effect threatens to deteriorate into a profitable business42”, an article taken over from The Financial

Times focuses on “the bankers, brokers, CEO’s and consultants who are interested in the promise of

lucrative trades in emission credits”, framing the carbon market as a way for private interests and

countries to make a lot of money. It focuses on the economic prospects and costs of a carbon

market and is accompanied by a graph which positions the cost-effective options to implement the

Kyoto Protocol, (the introduction of a global carbon market) against expensive ones (meeting the

Kyoto targets without emissions trading). As a consequence, the climate change debate is

economized as choice between affordable and unaffordable choices. Wouters’ disbelief in the

climate negotiations is also reflected in his coverage of the outcome of the summit, which he

describes as a “failure” in “Cold feet in The Hague43” in the foreign affairs section. He gives three

explanations for the failure of COP 6. First, governments are represented as unwilling to take

measures that interfere with ”our luxurious way of living and working”. Second, governments are

excused for not taking such a course of action through the deproblematization of climate change,

representing it as an issue which lacks “conclusive scientific proof”. Three, the “bitter discord” and

“quarreling” of the politicians of the EU and the USA and its allies. In an editorial called “Pyrrhus-

victory44”. These three arguments are indicative for Wouters’ representation of the Kyoto protocol

as too drastic and not based on scientific findings, in other words as irrational policy, and of the

climate negotiations as a power game between blocs of nation states. This explains his pessimism

of international regulatory policy, which re-occurs in “The long run-up to global climate policy45”, in

which he associates the several preceding COP’s with “a lack of progress”.

41 Wouters, 25/11/2000, p.7

42 Houlder, 24/11/2000, p.34

43 Wouters, 27/11/2000, p.5

44 27/11/2000, p.7

45 27,11/2007, p.7


https://theieca.org

of 121




Interestingly, in both newspapers the opinion pages provide space for discursive constructions,

which shed a different light on the climate change debate and demonstrate that alternatives to the

discursive constructions of both newspapers are possible. Although selected for publication by the

newspapers, op-eds do not necessarily reflect their respective editorial choices. In an op-ed

published by De Standaard 46 , which is written by two engineers who are also active as

environmental activists, the prevailing direction of climate policy is problematized. It differentiates

between “the oil barons […] the nuclear lobby […] the numerous industrial countries aiming to

further flexibilize and weaken Kyoto” who are linked to “ultraliberal free-market thinking” and the

“growth paradigm” on the one hand and “the representatives of a developing international civil

society who want to raise their voice in the debate” on the other. Similarly in De Morgen47 ,

environmental activists constitute an antagonism between themselves and “Big industry groups […]

The US and the World bank […] the coal and nuclear industry […] the competitive position of the

industry and the economic growth principle”. Here we see that the climate change is represented

as a political issue, an ideological conflict over the direction of climate policy. Actors are positioned

as political adversaries and differentiated on the basis of contending positions about the role of

markets and technology in dealing with climate change. Particular demands such as the increasing

use of market mechanisms to meet Kyoto targets or the representation of nuclear energy as a

“clean” technology are put forward as deliberate political choices, rather than uncontested

developments through de/politicizing discursive strategies.

Leading Actors

This section focuses on the journalists’ representation of leading actors in the coverage surrounding

the COP. In De Morgen, as argued before, Bogaert awards framing power to business interests and

scientists who advocate Promethean technologies and a market-based approach to climate change.

Van Scharen awards framing power to actors who are perceived to be contributing to the

negotiations, such as Pronk who is the chair of the conference and Belgium’s Federal State

Secretary for sustainability Olivier Deleuze from the francophone green party. In “Kyoto promises to

become even more hollow48”, near the end of the conference, environmental organizations, Deleuze

and the Nigerian delegation leader of the developing countries, are cited about a compromise plan

46 Kafka in The Hague, Jones & Naessens, 14/11/2000, p.14

47 A storm in a glass of water, Roels, Lammerant, Hulsens, Appeltans, De Moor, 15/11/2000, p.10

48 24/11/2000, p.10


https://theieca.org

of 121




of Pronk to keep the US on board of the Kyoto Protocol. This proposal allows industrialized

countries to meet their emission reduction targets completely through compensating, offsetting

mechanisms in developing countries, without any internal emission reduction at the source. Van

Scharen uncritically reproduces their criticism of these proposals as attempts to remove all

substantive content from the Kyoto Protocol, evaluating them from the perspective of the victims

of climate change in developing countries as the following highlighted quote accompanying the

article shows: “African delegations: ‘we are terribly disappointed to put it charitable’”. In this article,

legitimate and responsible actors who demand binding domestic regulation, such as Deleuze who

is awarded framing power, are distinguished from illegitimate, irresponsible actors, such as the USA

which is framed as the “boogieman who wants to take the substance out of the Kyoto protocol.

America is the world’s largest CO2 emitter”. In “Up to our necks. UN climate conference in The

Hague failed: Better no agreement than a bad agreement49”, the leading article about the outcome

in De Morgen, Van Scharen evaluates the outcome of the summit from the perspective of

developing countries by citing a professor from Bangladesh and stressing the consequences of

climate change for his country who frames the USA, “with their unbridled consumerism”, as the

irresponsible “climate criminals” blocking progress in the reduction of greenhouse gases. These

findings affirm that Van Scharen supports the principle of common, but differentiated, responsibility.

In the articles of Wouters for De Standaard, debate about climate change at the COP is reframed

into an argument between a homogenized USA and its allies and the EU, who are not so much

driven by the environment, but especially by their own economic and political interests, citing

representatives of European governments and the US government. In “Climate conference looks in

the direction of forests”, representatives from the US on the one hand and the EU and an

environmental movement on the other are awarded framing power, respectively, supporting and

opposing the inclusion of carbon sinks in the protocol. The climate change debate is framed as a

technical discussion (about the details of carbon markets) with the EU and US as primary actors. In

the next days, in “Europe and the USA already clash on climate conference50”, “Chirac and Blair

increase the pressure on Climate Conference51”; and “Deleuze in the clouds at climate conference52”,

49 Van Scharen, 27/11/2000, p.8

50 Wouters,15/11/2000, p.8

51 Reuters, 18-19/11/2000, p.7

52 Wouters, 21/11/2000, p.4


https://theieca.org

of 121




the climate change debate continues to be framed as a conflict between the EU, which advocates a

combination of at least 50 % domestic emission reductions and a regulated carbon market on the

one hand, and the US, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and Australia who want a deregulated carbon

market on the other. In these articles, the American delegation leader, Deleuze, the British prime

minister, the French president, as well as representatives of environmental organizations are cited,

while voices from developing countries and their concerns remain completely absent. In “A lot of

hypocrisy at climate conference53” on the foreign affairs pages, one day before the end of the

conference, the pessimistic framing of the summit is continued. In the introduction the involved

political actors are again framed as driven primarily by their political and economic self-interests,

rather than by environmental concerns (“The continuing World Climate Conferences are increasingly

getting a double layer: the conferences not only serve the environment, but also economic and

political interests”). “European Union declines rummage sale of carbon54” in the foreign affairs

section, reproduces the discourse of the EU, citing the French Minister for the Environment to reject

Pronk’s compromise plan to allow all emission reduction targets through carbon trading and

offsetting mechanisms, because it “jeopardizes the struggle against the greenhouse effect”. Almost

all actors are framed as self-interested: Pronk (“in a final attempt to save his climate conference”),

the USA (“demands an evasion route which would allow it to increase rather than decrease its

emissions”) and Russia (“it has two delegations: one for the climate, one for the trade in emission

rights”). This represents the UNFCCC as an arena of power politics in which nation-states pursue

their self-interest, rather than an effective institutional framework to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions. Wouters blames “the bitter discord between the European Union and the United

States… Pronk’s concern about prestige rather than the environment…the quarreling of ministers55”

for the failure of the summit. Similarly, in an editorial called “Pyrrhus-victory56”, foreign affairs

journalist Buysse also attributes the failure of the COP to the American and European unwillingness

to compromise (“By taking a firm stand on the last moment, after the Americans had already

abandoned a great deal of their nonsense, the European negotiators have made a terrible mistake”).

The journalist refers to the victory of the candidate from the Republican Party, George W. Bush, in

the recent US presidential elections. This implies that a deal with the US will become even more

53 Wouters, 15/11/2000,p.34

54 Wouters, 25/11/2000, p.7

55 Cold feet in The Hague, Wouters, 27/11/2000, p.5

56 27/11/2000, p.7


https://theieca.org

of 121




difficult in the future and the EU should therefore have compromised with the US to find an

agreement.

Both newspapers also frame citizens in a particular way. They are mostly absent from climate

change discourse, save for a few articles. In “Doing small things on a daily basis with a great

result57”, Bogaert covers a demonstration of environmentalists who are building a symbolic dyke of

sand sacks to protect the conference hall against rising sea levels. He focuses on the form of the

protest, rather than on the political demands of the environmental protestors. In the article, he cites

two young people, active in environmental NGO’s and focuses on their advocacy of small individual

behavior changes such as: “putting out lights in rooms when you are not there, switching of your

computer, television set or stereo when they are not used” to protect the climate. By focusing on

“environment and energy saving tips”, the agency of citizens remains limited to making the ‘right’

individual lifestyle changes. Such a moralization of climate change is sustained through a

highlighted quote by a young girl (“I don’t get it why many grown-ups are doing nothing to help

the Eskimo. In the film you saw that the sea is threatening entire fishermen’s’ villages”). In this

quote, a homogenized account of the adult population (“the grown-ups”), who are all equally

blamed as irresponsible villains for their political inaction, are positioned against homogenized

accounts of the victims of climate change: the indigenous people of the North Pole and future

generations, depicting the struggle against climate change as a moral issue. Similarly, in “The

winners of today are the losers of tomorrow58”, Bogaert again invokes the next generations as a

moral imperative to delegitimize the immoral conduct of “politicians” and “industries” during the

COP (“The next generation will have to cough up thousands of billions to make life on earth

possible in the next century”). Similarly, in “According to the elderly, it’s the will of god59”, on the

second page in ‘the news report of the day’, Van Scharen cites various victims of climate change or

“climate refugees” from Canada, New Zealand and Honduras who have been hit by “flooding

islands, paralyzing ice storms and day long hurricanes”.

Wouters of De Standaard also features an interview60 with a Belgian 17 year old who is allowed to

speak as a political agent about his demands and views about climate change. He denounces the

57 20/11/2000, p.2

58 27/11/2000, p.8

59 15/11/2000, p.2

60 A lot of hypocrisy at the climate conference, 24/11/2000, p.6


https://theieca.org

of 121




hypocrisy of the negotiators by comparing their words to their actions. In another article61, we find

a moralizing distinction between homogenized accounts of the ‘good’ people who represent the

social consensus and are differentiated from the ‘bad’ politicians who are blocking social consensus

(“the quarrelling of the indecisive politicians stands in stark contrast with the consensus which

youngsters of more than sixty countries portrayed”). This portrayal of social consensus amongst

these young people, who are also represented as the future victims of climate, is invoked as moral

imperative to demand, unspecified “concrete action” from politicians.

National Role

On 08/11/2000, a week before the start of the COP, the national climate plan of the federal

government is presented by state secretary for sustainable development Deleuze of the

francophone Green party. This plan explains how Belgium plans to meet its Kyoto reduction targets.

In “Belgium chooses resolutely for introduction CO2 tax” in De Morgen, current affairs journalist

Goris uncritically endorses the content of the plan and focuses on the possible economic

consequences of a carbon tax for industries, about which he argues that “everybody agrees that

the introduction of a carbon tax is only possible at the European level” to delegitimize unilateral

regulation of greenhouse gases through a discursive strategy of economization.

A similar discursive construction can be found in De Standaard. In “Greenhouse effect creates jobs.

Energy tax must decrease emissions by 20 percent62” Wouters similarly legitimizes the proposed

energy tax by focusing on its positive economic prospects, be it on two conditions which ought to

keep this policy in line with national competitiveness: (i) the tax must be compensated by a

reduction in labor taxation (ii) and it has to be implemented on a European level, or “at least” with

the cooperation of “four to five countries”. The newspaper continues to represent climate change

from the perspective of affordability and market considerations in “Greenhouse effect mainly

French-speaking63”. In this front-pager, Wouters discusses the findings of a European cost-benefit

analysis which argues that the reduction of greenhouse gases is the “most effective” in the French-

speaking part of Belgium. Effectiveness is here interpreted in terms of economic costs. In other

words, the reduction of greenhouse gases is the cheapest in Wallonia and Brussels and the most

61 Cold feet in The Hague, 27/11/2000, p.5

62 09/11/2000, p.2

63 30/11/2000, p.1


https://theieca.org

of 121




expensive in Flanders, consequently concluding that that it is rational to mainly reduce greenhouse

gases in the French-speaking parts as reductions are most rational in these places.


https://theieca.org

of 121




IPCC Third Assessment Report: January-July 2001

Introduction

The IPCC is a scientific body, set up at the request of member governments to review the scientific

literature on climate change. It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations,

the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program

(UNEP). Each five or six years, selected governmental representatives gather in three different

Working Groups (WG) to review the existing scientific, technical and socio-economic information

worldwide about the physical science basis (WG I), its potential environmental and socio-economic

consequences and potential adaptation options (WG II) and potential mitigation options (WG III),

and make up a summary for policy makers (IPCC, 2014). These findings are again summarized in

the Synthesis Report. For the third Assessment Report, the three Working Groups released their

respective summary for policy-makers in the first half of 2001 on 22/01/2001, 19/02/2001 and

05/03/2001, respectively. The Synthesis Report was published on 12/07/2011.

De Morgen dedicates seven articles on the release of these reports of which four are devoted to

the Synthesis Report. De Standaard devotes one small article to each part of them, leading to a

total of four of which three are reproduced press releases by Reuters and the Algemeen

Nederlands Persbureau (ANP). This indicates that the report is not considered to be a significant

event by this newspaper.

Table 4: Amount of newspaper articles about the 3rd IPCC Assessment Report in De Morgen

and De Standaard

Total

number of

articles

Regular

news

articles

Front-page

articles Editorials

Op-eds &

Columns

De Morgen 7 6 1 0 0



https://theieca.org

of 121




Report Working Group I on the Physical Science Basis

The coverage on WG-I demonstrates that both newspapers assess scientific knowledge about the

causes and consequences of climate change differently. In “Faster warming caused by humans64” in

De Morgen, “the world’s most prominent climatologists” are cited in a small article on the science

pages to authorize a direct and certain link between ”humans” on the one hand and accelerating

climate change on the other. This discursive construction homogenizes responsibilities, reaffirming

the antagonism between a homogenized “Us” and climate change as an externalized “Them”.

A more reassuring discursive construction can be found in De Standaard. In “Global warming makes

earth between 1 to 6 degrees warmer65”, Wouters discusses a leaked version of the report in a

small article on the science pages and continues to link the issue to scientific uncertainty. The title

acknowledges the existence of “global warming”, but provides a very wide range of possible future

temperature rises, implying that climate science is still confronted with many uncertainties about

the consequences of climate change. He cites both “IPCC scientists” and “skeptics”, giving a divided

assessment of climate science. Wouters’ choice to highlight scientific uncertainty, serves to de-

problematize the issue and undermine further anticipatory mitigation of greenhouse gases.

Report Working Group II on Impacts and Adaptation

The second report is endorsed in both newspapers on February 20th, 2001. “Developing countries

suffer the most from climate change” in De Morgen is taken over from the Dutch newspaper De

Volkskrant and cites a Dutch “climate expert” who was involved in the Working Group on the sixth

page of the newspaper. Although this article is a reproduction from a foreign newspaper, it appears

to reaffirm De Morgen’s attention for issues of climate justice. “Higher temperature hits poor

countries first “ in De Standaard reproduces a press release from Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau

(ANP) on page 8, which indirectly cites the working group report. By using the simple present and

words as “hit” and “suffer” in the headline, climate change is problematized as an actual, rather

than future issue in these articles. Developing countries are framed as the main victims of climate

change, framing climate change as a problem of injustice. This discursive construction differs from

prior assessments in De Standaard. This can be explained by the editorial choice to use a press

release rather than an article written by Wouters.

64 Bleys, 23/01/2001, p.9

65 06/11/2000, p.21


https://theieca.org

of 121




Report Working Group III on Mitigation

In “Decreasing global warming does not have to cost much. Consumer can tackle global warming,

but has to choose for it66”, Bogaert covers the report of Working Group III for De Morgen in a half-

pager on the science pages, accompanied by pictures of the desertification of Chad. In the title,

individual behavioral change is framed as an affordable course of action. In the subtitle “Scientists

break a lance for sustainable energy sources and economical cars and household appliances”, a

discursive strategy of scientization can be found. This strategy invokes science as the basis for

policy choices to legitimize particular political responses to climate change as scientific and

delegitimize other ones as unscientific. Implicit in this appeal is that science has the authority to

make definitive, value-neutral and universal statements about what is dangerous for people and

societies and, ultimately, for the world, but also about what should be done about it. The

prioritization of individual action is authorized through the direct citation of former WG-III co-chair

and chemist Ben Wetz in the introduction:

Politicians have the difficult task to overcome all economic and political oppositions that play

an important role in the creation of greenhouse gases today. However, the greatest power to

combat global warming today lays with the consumer. He must be prepared to make certain

small sacrifices to safeguard the future of the planet.

In the quote, actions by politicians are treated with pessimism and are implicitly framed as

unrealistic, while “small sacrifices” are framed as the moral responsibility of “consumers […] to

safeguard the future of the planet” (see also the following quote by IPCC chair Bob Watson: “Do

not forget that 6 billion people- if they want it themselves- have a much larger impact on global

warming than ten thousand politicians or a similar amount of multinational enterprises”), implying

that everybody shares an equal responsibility to reduce greenhouse gases and that anyone who for

whatever reason does not act as a green consumer threatens “the future of the planet” and is

therefore immoral.

66 06/03/2001, p.20


https://theieca.org

of 121




In “The United Nations do not find tackling climate change to be so expensive67”, in De Standaard,

the report is again covered by a press release of ANP, uncritically reproducing the discourse of “the

scientists from the IPCC”. In contrast to De Morgen, the content is represented as a claim by an

actor (the UN), rather than an undisputed fact, leaving more room for contingency. The

introduction continues as following: “It is relatively cheap to decrease greenhouse gas emissions

and to stop climate change. By now, such a successful technology has been developed, that great

steps are possible”. The “tackling of climate change” and “decrease of greenhouse gas emissions”

are legitimized as affordable. Climate change risks are optimistically framed as manageable and

amenable through technological development (which is not specified further, however).

Synthesis Report

On 13/07/2001, just before the start of COP 6bis, De Morgen devotes four articles to the release of

the synthesis report of the IPCC, of which three are written by Nathalie Carpentier and one is taken

over from the British newspaper The Independent and subsequently adapted by Carpentier. In

“Man is stoking the earth 68 ” in the science section, all ingredients of Carpentier’s discursive

construction of the Synthesis Report are exemplified:

Catastrophic for the whole world. The new UN-report sticks this doom prediction about

global warming to the future, because of the unstoppable rise of global temperatures.

Billions will suffer directly from the consequences. The weakest are hit the first and worst.

The report puts pressure on countries to ratify the Kyoto-protocol during the climate

conference in Bonn next week. The elaborate publication of the cream of the crop of the

scientific world means an obvious reprimand of Bush’ attitude and states immediately that

nobody can put this phenomenon next to him. According to skeptics, the achieved

conclusions only reflect the assumptions the designers put into the models. Scientists

defend themselves with the ‘enormous amount of observation of all parts of the climate

system’, that justify the recent vision on the accelerating warming world.

67 06/03/2001, p.7

68 p.33


https://theieca.org

of 121




First, responsibility for climate change is homogenized in the article title which blames the entire

human species. Second, human interference with the climate is framed as dangerous, using a

pessimistic tone, invoking language of acceleration and irreversibility in the first four sentences. A

similar discursive construction can be found in the headline on the front page on the same day by

Carpentier: “Global warming worse than previously thought” and in similar article about the report:

“New climate report portrays grim future”. The “doom predictions” are written in the simple future

or simple present, rather than the present conditional, increasing the likelihood of these events.

Third, “the weakest” are represented as the first victims of climate change, implicitly legitimizing

mitigation from the perspective of climate justice. This frame of climate justice can also be found in

her article “No agreement means wealth for us the problems for our children”. Fourth, this

discursive construction is authorized by referring to “the cream of the crop of the scientific world”.

The quick ratification of the Kyoto protocol, which attributes responsibility for anticipatory

mitigation of greenhouse gases to industrialized countries, is legitimized through a discursive

strategy of scientization. In using science as the normative basis for policy, “the cream of the crop

of the scientific world” is distinguished from the epistemically-vacuous “Bush’s attitude” and

“skeptics”. This rationalizes the climate change debate in terms of science, with the dichotomy

scientific/unscientific standing in for rational/irrational.

The synthesis report is covered by only one small article in De Standaard, taking over a press

release from Reuters. In “Science props up Kyoto69”, emission reduction through the Kyoto protocol

is legitimized through scientization (“But the call to decrease CO2-emissions has a firm scientific

basis”). The article cites the IPCC and portrays climate science as consensual about the link between

the greenhouse effect and climate change, but as “uncertain” and “predictions” about the

consequences of climate change. The assessment of climate science as consensual and certain, and

the support for the Kyoto Protocol, can again be explained by the choice for a press release, rather

than a journalistic article.

69 18/07/2001, p.6


https://theieca.org

of 121




COP 6 Bonn: July 2001

Introduction

After the failed COP 6 in The Hague, governments agreed to gather again between 18 and 24 July

2001 in Bonn, where the UNFCCC resides, for a COP 6bis. According to Conolly & Smith (2003), the

Bonn agreement was signed by enough industrialized countries to ensure the continuation of the

Kyoto Protocol. However, the then largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States, had

withdrawn from the protocol under its new president, the Republican George Bush Jr., in March

2001. This gave countries such as Japan, Canada and Australia negotiating power to gain

concessions from the EU to remove almost all restrictions on emissions trading and offsetting.

De Morgen publishes 19 and De Standaard 22 articles on climate change. For De Morgen, Nathalie

Carpentier has become the leading journalist, writing 7/19 articles. For De Standaard, Wouters

remains the leading journalist, writing 13/22 articles.

Table 5: Amount of newspaper articles about COP 6bis Bonn in De Morgen and De Standaard

Climate Science and the Causes and Consequences of Climate Change

3 out of19 articles in De Morgen confirm the newspaper’s construction of climate change as an

actual problem by making direct links between climate change and actual consequences. In

“Penguins in trouble all over the world. Evidence is accumulating that global warming is the first

cause for the disappearance of sea birds70” in the science section, biologists are cited, highlighting

70 Yoon, 28/06/2001, p.26

Total

Regular

news

articles

Front-page

articles Editorials Op-eds

De Morgen 19 18 1 0 0



https://theieca.org

of 121




the consequences of climate change for biodiversity71. In “Without climate agreements more rain

and sunshine in Europe. The increase in greenhouse gases causes climate shifts72” in the national

affairs section, Bogaert makes a direct link between climate change and changes in weather

patterns in Europe. In the article, a climatologist who is attending COP 6bis as an observer is cited,

invoking a strategy of scientization to legitimize and authorize a particular course of action (‘We

need to reduce the emission of harmful greenhouse gases with minimally 50 %’) as ““pure, actual

science” and to differentiate it from the epistemically-vacuous demands of politicians such as

George Bush who has been so “foolish to declare the very modest Kyoto-protocol to be dead”.

In De Standaard, 2 out of 22 articles focus on the causes and/or consequences of climate change,

confirming the patterns identified in the coverage of COP 6 The Hague and the IPCC report. In

“Who warms the climate?73”, Wouters continues to frame climate change as a matter of scientific

uncertainty. The article announces a television documentary by “the young physicist Svenmark”,

which links climate change to changes in solar activity rather than anthropogenic activity

(“According to Svenmark’s theory it is the activity of the sun which steers our climate. The sun does

not do that directly, but through her influence on the cloud cover”). Wouters chooses to stress the

uncertainties of climate science and focuses on scientific disagreement (“on international climate

conferences Svenmark’s theory was laughed off. Nevertheless, there is an increasing amount of

scientists who take Svenmark seriously”). However, in “Red Cross notes highest number of natural

disasters in ten years. More natural disasters because of global warming74”, the findings of a report

from the well-established charity organization are uncritically reproduced, constituting a direct link

between climate change and the rise in natural disasters, such as hurricanes and droughts. This

differentiation from the previously identified pattern could be explained by the editorial choice for

a small article written by a science journalist who does not write any other articles on climate

change, rather than an article by Wouters, the newspaper’s leading journalist on climate change.

Climate Negotiations

De Morgen devotes 12 out of 19 articles to the climate summit. Although Van Scharen does not

cover COP 6bis Bonn, the discursive construction of the newspaper is very similar to that of him

71 For a similar discursive construction see: Climate needs to coupled to biodiversity, Carpentier, 18/07/2001, p.4

72 23/07/2001, p.3

73 04/08/2001, p.17

74 Van Loon, 29/06/2001, p.8.


https://theieca.org

of 121




during COP 6 The Hague: regulation of greenhouse gases through the Kyoto Protocol and the

principle of common but differentiated responsibility are supported, and the US position is

delegitimized. A few days before the COP, the need for consensus is legitimized through a

discursive strategy of moralization, invoking the consequences for “our children” as a moral

imperative, in the headline of an article by leading journalist Carpentier: “No agreement means

wealth for us and problems for our children75”. The eventual consensus in Bonn is heralded as a

positive achievement in three articles by Carpentier, including one front-page article (“Again space

to breath for Kyoto after compromise in Bonn. State Secretary Deleuze salvages ultimate

compromise76”). In “Rather a moderate than a non-existing agreement. Olivier Deleuze (Ecolo)

played a crucial role in the compromise about Kyoto77”, a half-pager in the foreign affairs section,

Carpentier’s frames the “moderate agreement” as a step forward and an example of moderation,

compromise and feasibility.

De Standaard publishes 14 articles on the summit, which confirm the newspaper’s pessimism

regarding the UNFCCC. In “Storm clouds gather above Bonn78”, on the first day of the conference,

Wouters remains pessimistic about the summit, focusing on the deep disagreements between

nation-states (“Great opinion differences stand in the way: about land uses and the forests and the

amount of carbon dioxide that are stored in it; about financial help, about the transfer of

technology”). He addresses the hypocrisy of politicians by pointing to the environmental costs of

COP 6bis (“the World Climate Conferences are starting to generate a mini greenhouse-effect by

themselves”) and he personalizes the purpose of the summit as a self-interested publicity effort by

conference chair Pronk79 (“Bonn is a deliberate attempt to grant the Dutch environment minister,

Jan Pronk, a ‘Climate Declaration’ to which he can tie his name”). When against all expectations of

Wouters, the parties do come to an agreement without the US at COP 6bis, the Bonn agreement is

slated and framed as “a step back from Kyoto” in six articles in De Standaard, including two front-

page articles and an editorial. The following quote from “Green ministers swallow dismantled Kyoto

75 13/07/2001, p.33

76 24/07/2001, p.1

77 24/07/2001, p.4

78 18/07/2001, p.6

79 For a similar discursive construction see: Youth condemns slacking conference, Wouters, 23/07/2001, p.6


https://theieca.org

of 121




Protocol”, a half-pager on the second page, serves as a representative illustration of Wouters’

criticism of the outcome of the COP:

The agreement that was reached in Bonn about the implementation of the climate protocol

of Kyoto will not stop the impending greenhouse effect. It is also not a first moderate step

towards the reduction of greenhouse gases that are causing the impending climate change.

That first step was taken in 1997 in Kyoto. The agreement of Bonn takes a step back. A

dismantled protocol remains.

Leading actors

In De Morgen, actors and demands are evaluated on the basis of an existing scientific and moral

consensus to reduce greenhouse gases through the Kyoto protocol, distinguishing the legitimate,

responsible demands of the EU from the illegitimate, irresponsible demands of the US, which is

stigmatized as an enemy of the consensus. In this process, the Kyoto-protocol is naturalized as the

inevitable framework for climate policy. For instance, on the first day of the conference, in “Dark

clouds gather above climate summit Bonn. If Japan also drops the protocol of Kyoto, then the EU

has made all the effort for nothing 80“, the EU is positioned against Japan and the US. The EU is

endorsed as the only actor who adheres to Kyoto (“the only industrial superpower who keeps on

defending the protocol for better or for worse”). A Greenpeace spokeswoman is directly cited to

delegitimize the American position and stress the importance of consensus at COP 6bis: “Bush is

the culprit for many environmental organizations, because he tries to block the Kyoto protocol,

under pressure of large energy consortia that funded his campaign. […] No agreement would mean

a disaster”). The article is accompanied by a burning picture which depicts Bush as a crime suspect.

On the picture, the following is written: “wanted for crimes against humanity and the planet”. This

delegitimizes the position of the US as immoral. This delegitimization of the American position

continues in six other articles on the negotiations. In these articles Aelvoet and Deleuze are

heralded as the heroes of the climate conference (“Deleuze salvages ultimate compromise81”). The

respective journalists covering the negotiations for De Morgen award them full framing power,

supporting their conduct and reinforcing their stance on climate change and Kyoto. They are

80 Delputte, 17/07/2001, p.15

81 Carpentier, 24/07/2001, p.1


https://theieca.org

of 121




positioned against the irresponsible, illegitimate position of the US which is personalized by US

president George Bush Jr and depicted as: “ethically completely reprehensible 82 ”; “the world’s

largest CO2-polluter83”; “irresponsible84”; “the obstructionist85”; “the renowned spoilsport: the United

States […]a ghost rider86”.

In De Standaard, the climate negotiations are framed as a power game between government elites

who pursue either national or personal interests. Wouters continues to stress the importance of

American involvement throughout the coverage. In “Australia continues to reject the protocol of

greenhouse gases87”, a week before the COP on the foreign affairs pages, he is pessimistic about

the likelihood of an agreement which reduces greenhouse gases, due to the disagreement between

the EU, “standing alone in its defense of Kyoto”, on the one hand, and the US and Australia, on the

other. The Australian environment minister is directly cited about his refusal to sign any climate

agreement without the consent of the United States (“making rules without the Unites States boils

down to shutting the door”). Consequently, the US position which delegitimizes anticipatory

reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the perspective of national competitiveness is

uncritically reproduced (“Bush judges that American companies would be disadvantaged and

wanted to include big developing countries such as China and India in the protocol”). In both

“Japan under large pressure on World Climate Conference88” and “The door is open for a more

‘flexible’ Kyoto89”, Wouters differentiates between the EU and Japan. He focuses on the one hand

on European diplomatic pressure to keep Japan in the Kyoto treaty, even if the US continues to

defect, and on the other on Japan’s negotiating power with regards to concessions to weaken the

Kyoto protocol, by making it less binding (“Japan attempted to take the opportunity to demand

far-reaching changes to make the Kyoto-protocol more flexible”). When the summit draws to a

82 Green hope against all odds. Aelvoet braces herself for climate summit Bonn, Carpentier, 18/07/2001, p.4

83Climate summit is stuck, Carpentier, 20/07/2001, p.7

84 Up to our necks at climate summit Bonn , Goris, 23/07/2001, p.1

85 Deleuze wants to save the climate summit with domino strategy, Goris, 23/07/2001, p.3

86 Rather a moderate than a non-existing agreement. Olivier Deleuze (Ecolo) played a crucial role in the compromise about Kyoto, Carpentier, 24/07/2001, p.4

87 Associated Press, 08/07/2001, p.6

88 19/07/2001, p.5

89 Wouters, 10/07/2001, p.5


https://theieca.org

of 121




close, the European environment ministers of the Green Party are fiercely criticized in De Standaard.

This can be illustrated by the following quote on the front-page:

The many green ministers that are co-governing Europe today have swallowed this. A few

years ago, they would have screamed blue murder from the opposition. Now they talk about

a ‘historical compromise’. Not out of ecological, but political reasons: the isolation of the

United States and European leadership90.

Green ministers are framed as hypocrites who flip-flop on climate change and aim to strengthen

European leadership in international politics at the expense of the US. According to Wouters,

nation-states and country blocs are driven by power, rather than idealistic concerns to protect the

climate. The Bonn agreement should therefore be understood as a diplomatic victory by the EU,

rather than a decision which effectively reduces greenhouse gas emissions 91 . Similarly, in the

editorial “Kyoto Light92” by foreign affairs editor Buysse, the negotiations are framed as a power

game between self-interested nation-states (“A diplomatic brawl between the United States and the

European Unions, that’s what the Kyoto continuation conference has turned out to be”). The

compromise is criticized, because it weakens Kyoto and does not include the world’s most powerful

country and largest emitter: the United States (“The Americans do not need to be isolated, but

need to be engaged again through combined efforts in the search for solutions for the greenhouse

effect”). The newspaper’s simultaneous rejection of the Bonn agreement as a “dismantled Kyoto

Protocol”, referring to the concessions green ministers had to make to keep countries such as

Japan and Australia on board on the one hand, and its stress on the inclusion of the US in the

Kyoto Protocol on the other, is contradictory. The inclusion of the US in the Kyoto Protocol would

require the complete renegotiation of the Protocol and imply even a further shift towards offsetting

emission reduction targets. This discursive construction excuses political inaction on climate change

in Europe as long as the US does not agree on international greenhouse gas regulations.

90 Green ministers swallow disarmed Kyoto Protocol, Wouters, 24/07/2001, p.1

91 For a similar discursive construction see: Kyoto shows the deep cleavage between the US and Europe, Wouters, 24/07/2001, p.1

92 24/07/2011, p.7


https://theieca.org

of 121




National Role

In both newspapers, the national and European positions are explicitly equated during the coverage

of COP 6bis, thereby constructing a European ’Us’. This can be partly explained by the fact that

Belgium is the rotating president of the EU at the time. The position of the EU is personalized by

federal environment minister Aelvoet and state secretary for sustainable development Deleuze. Both

are members of the Green party and lead the European delegation at COP 6bis. As argued before,

De Morgen heralds Aelvoet and Deleuze as the heroes of the climate conference and gives them

framing power throughout the conference. In contrast, Wouters of De Standaard frames them as

hypocrites who are particularly driven by their aim to strengthen European leadership in

international politics at the expense of the US, rather than mitigating climate change risks.

As shown earlier, coverage in both newspapers is generally supportive of Belgium’s’ participation in

the Kyoto protocol, citing various sources which defend this decision. De Morgen also publishes

one interview93 in the economics section with a spokesman for Het Vlaams Economisch Verbond,

the Federation of Flemish enterprises, who delegitimizes the ratification of the Kyoto protocol

through a discursive strategy of economization as a “Kamikaze action, which could have serious

consequences for the Belgian economy”, pointing several times to the “high costs” of the emission

reduction targets and the threat of delocalization. In the interview, he argues for a shift from

regulation to voluntary agreements with businesses and the use of market mechanisms, which

allow the government to offset its targets by buying carbon allowances and financing “carbon sinks”

in different countries. This discursive construction of climate change in this interview, evaluating

climate policy from the perspective of business, is similar to that found in the articles of Bogaert for

De Morgen.

De Standaard devotes one descriptive, small article to the ratification of the Kyoto protocol in the

Federal Chamber of Representatives94. Wouters also devotes one article about the disagreement

within the federal government between on the one hand green parties who are in favor of a

carbon tax to meet the 7.5 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions set by the Kyoto Protocol,

and on the other hand the liberals for whom such a tax is “still one bridge too far”. The article is

accompanied by a highlighted quote: “Energy tax creates jobs, if government simultaneously lowers

93 The employers’ organization Vlaams Economisch Verbond has questions about the rush by which Belgium wants to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, Mooijman, 22/06/2001, p.12

94 X, 14/07/2001, p.7


https://theieca.org

of 121




taxes for employers”, which focuses on the economic benefits of the tax. This suggests that

Wouters continues to be in favor of such a tax, on the condition that it does not hamper the profit

margins of businesses. A few days before the beginning of the COP, De Standaard publishes an op-

ed by spokesmen for WWF, the only climate change-related op-ed surrounding the COP, which

heads that “Belgium needs to be a green president95” of the EU and advocates, among other things,

a national carbon tax.

Summary

The analysis of climate change coverage in De Morgen and De Standaard of COP 6, the Third IPCC

Assessment Report and COP 6bis reveals important differences and similarities between, but also

within, the newspapers.

All journalists in De Morgen frame the climate as a fragile entity with a limited carrying capacity

and dramatize climate change as an actual and urgent problem, linking the issue to various

extreme weather events, using simple rather than conditional tenses and assessing climate science

as consensual, certain and authoritative. Voices who stress scientific uncertainty are neglected or

delegitimized. The mutual framing of scientific certainty, weather references and dangerous

consequences serves as a discursive strategy to problematize climate change.

A very different analysis of climate change can be found in the articles written by Wouters, the

leading journalist for De Standaard who writes 32/50 selected articles. He frames the climate as

resilient to human influences and deproblematizes and deprioritizes the issue by amplifying

scientific uncertainty and disagreement about the anthropogenic causes and consequences of

climate change. A framing of climate science as certain and consensual about the causes and

consequences of climate change is restricted to either press releases or one-time articles by certain

journalists.

Within the coverage of the De Morgen, there is a consensus about the need for reductions in the

emissions of greenhouse gases, but there is diversity about how climate change risks need to be

mitigated. Van Scharen and Carpentier, who respectively write 5/53 and 10/53 of selected articles

for De Morgen, evaluate actors and demands on the basis of an existing scientific and moral

95 Ortegat & Long, 09/07/2001, p.10


https://theieca.org

of 121




consensus to regulate the greenhouse gases of industrialized countries through the Kyoto protocol.

They position the legitimate, responsible demands of actors such as representatives of the EU, who

are awarded framing power, against the unscientific, immoral and irresponsible demands of the

USA, which is stigmatized as an enemy of the moral and scientific consensus to mitigate

greenhouse through the Kyoto framework. In this process, the Kyoto-protocol is naturalized as the

inevitable framework for climate policy. These journalists pay special attention to voices from

developing countries and stress the responsibilities of industrializing countries, adhering to the

principle of common, but differentiated, responsibility.

On the other hand, the leading journalist for De Morgen, Bogaert, who writes 20 articles, is clearly

optimistic about the prospects of nuclear energy, geo-engineering, carbon markets, population

controls and green consumerism, and pessimistic about the political regulation of greenhouse

gases through the Kyoto Protocol. He awards framing power to business interests and ‘experts’,

who use strategies of economization and scientization, to either legitimize the former or to

delegitimize ‘extreme’, ‘unrealistic’ or ‘insufficient’ demands for binding regulation of greenhouse

gases through an international climate agreement. He also legitimize these standpoints through a

moralizing discursive strategy, invoking victims of climate change as a moral imperative to

legitimize his climate policy preferences. As a consequence, climate change is constructed as a

moral or technical issue, amenable through technocratic decision-making and market forces.

Similar to Bogaert, Wouters of De Standaard is pessimistic about the likelihood of effective

international regulation of greenhouse gases through the UNFCCC. He invokes rationalizing

discursive strategies to delegitimize regulatory frameworks for the mitigation of greenhouse gases

and to legitimize non-regulatory climate policies which do not interfere with the competitiveness or

profitability of market forces, e.g. ‘effective’ carbon taxes which are compensated by a reduction in

labor taxation and government investments in energy innovation and societal resilience. He frames

the climate negotiations as a power game between self-interested nations, positioning a self-

interested and homogenized EU against an equally self-interested USA, thereby criticizing the

former for proceeding with the Kyoto protocol without the inclusion of the USA and supporting the

latter’s preference for equal responsibilities between poor and rich countries or a level playing field

which allows to preserve national competitiveness by reducing emissions at an equal cost. This

constitutes climate change as a technical issue, amenable by technocratic decision-making and

market forces.


https://theieca.org

of 121





https://theieca.org

of 121




COP 12 Nairobi: November 2006

Introduction

The Belgian release of Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, one month before the start of

COP12 in Nairobi kick starts a “climate hype” of unprecedented media coverage and political

attention. Politicians from all political parties attend a screening of the documentary, organized by

Margaretha Guidone. She is a housewife who becomes a local climate celebrity and the center of

media attention when federal environment minister Tobback takes her along to the climate summit

and awards his speech time to her at the General Assembly of COP 12 in Nairobi. This climate

summit in Nairobi is the first climate summit, in which discussions are held about the follow-up of

the Kyoto protocol, and possibilities for participation from key “developing” countries, such as

China and India (Boykoff, 2011:116). Between 6 October and 17 December 2006, De Morgen and

De Standaard publish respectively 73 and 70 articles about climate change. Articles are written by

different journalists than in the first critical discourse period. In De Morgen, there is no leading

journalist on climate change anymore. Most articles are written by different journalists such as

Carpentier, Debusschere, Decoo, Goris and Delputte. In De Standaard, Dominique Minten, a

foreign affairs journalist who writes 17 out of 70 articles has become the leading journalist on

climate change. Bogaert, Wouters and Van Scharen no longer write for the selected newspapers.

Table 6:

Amount of articles

about COP

12 Nairobi, 2006 in De

Morgen and De Standaard

Total

Regular

news

articles

Front-page

articles Editorials

Op-eds &

columns

De Morgen 73 60 6 1 6



https://theieca.org

of 121




Climate science and the causes and consequences of climate change

In line with previous assessments, a frame of scientific certainty is continuously adopted in De

Morgen, when covering the causes and consequences of climate change. In De Standaard on the

other hand , scientific uncertainty and disagreement have vanished from the news coverage. In the

editorial “Suddenly everybody sees the impending apocalypse 96 ”, Minten and deputy-editor

Verhoeven frame climate change as a potentially catastrophic problem and explicitly link this

discursive shift to recent scientific findings:

It was raining reports and warnings about the environment last week. The reports sketch a

portrait of an impending apocalypse and they are coming from authoritative institutions. They

signify the turn in the minds that has happened across the globe. Doubt or soothing debate

is out of the question.

It is interesting to note that the newspaper’s changed assessment of climate science is represented

as corresponding with “a turn in the minds” in the world, rather than a deliberate journalistic choice,

implying that scientific consensus is a recent phenomenon and that the newspaper has always been

in tune with evolutions in science.

In De Morgen in 7 out of 73 articles and in De Standaard in 8 out 70 articles, various reports are

endorsed which constitute a link between anthropogenic climate change and various consequences

through a frame of scientific certainty, framing climate change as an impending threat. In “More

diseases because of rising temperature97” in De Morgen, a report by the World Health Organization

about the health consequences of climate change is endorsed. Three other articles in De Morgen

are devoted to the dramatic impacts of climate change in developing countries, endorsing reports

by aid NGO’s (“Climate change will cause a refugee crisis98”; “Thai expert: Start building dykes now

or Bangkok disappears into the sea99” and “Kyoto cannot wait anymore100”). In De Standaard, all

96 02/11/2006, p.30

97 X, 15/11/2006, p.1

98 Mccarthy, , 21/10/2006, p.10;

99 Delputte,28/11/2006, p.10


https://theieca.org

of 121




these reports are ignored, confirming the absence of a climate justice frame in the newspaper. Both

newspapers devote one article on the consequences of climate change for biodiversity (“Sonian

Forest suffers from climate change101”; “Rise in lichens points to warming102”). Furthermore, both

newspapers devote one article to a report from the journal Geophysical Research Letters about the

effects of climate change on the North Pole (“Arctic Sea already ice-free in 2040103”; “Arctic Sea

already ice-free in 2040104”); and a study by the OECD about effects on ski resorts (“Climate change

threatens economy of ski resorts105”; “Snow melts in front of the sun106”). De Standaard also covers

a report by the Stockholm Environment Institute about the consequences for heritage (“Global

warming threatens world heritage sites107”); the United Nations Development Program on global

water supplies (“Global warming bigger threat than war108) and an Austrian climatologist on glaciers

(Glaciers threatened across the globe109 ”).

Another five articles 110 in De Morgen and six in De Standaard 111 cite various meteorologists,

establishing a direct link between the warm fall and summer of 2006 and climate change. This link

reinforces the sense of urgency and the frame of scientific certainty regarding climate change,

depicting climate change as a real problem with actual and near consequences rather than future

and distant impacts.

100 Vuylsteke,31/10/2006, p.10

101 Swierstra, De Morgen, 17/11/2006, p.5

102 Belga, De Standaard, 20/11/2006, p.45

103 X, De Morgen, 12/12/2006, P.3

104 AP, De Standaard, 12/12/2006, P.3

105 Swierstra, De Morgen, 12/12/2006, p.3

106 De Rijck, De Standaard, 14/12/2006, p.32

107 AP, De Standaard, 08/11/2006, p.5

108 Desmet, De Standaard, 10/11/2006, p.19

109 De Rijck, De Standaard, 14/12/2006, p.33

110 Indian summer controls the fall, Holvoet, 18/10/2006, p.7; The weather has lost track, Van Holen, 26/10/2006, p.20; Hottest 16 November in 100 years, Swierstra, 17/11/2006, p.7; Warm weather makes weatherman Deboosere take a U-turn on climate change, Peeters, 27/11/2006, p.10; Fall tags off at record temperatures, Swierstra, 02/12/2006, p.14

111 Nature upset because of warmth, Ysebaert, 24/10/2006, p.7; Warmest fall ever recorded in Belgium, Belga, 27/11/2006, p.3; Again a record day temperature, Belga, 28/11/2006; p.5; Fall of 2006 breaks record, Belga, 02/12/2006, p.11; Almost half a degree warmer on earth in 2006, Minten, 15/12/2006, p.14; It’s raining harder than it used to, Minten, 15/12/2006, p.14


https://theieca.org

of 121




In line with its established discursive positions, scientific uncertainty continues to be explicitly

delegitimized as an irrational and immoral position in De Morgen. In a large interview article112 with

a Belgian “climate expert” and IPCC-member, the following quote is highlighted in a large, two-

pager, arguing in the lead that:

Who denies global warming, is either stupid or paid by industries. The people that have

denied climate change for years on, bear a huge responsibility. One day, together with their

principals from the oil industry, they will be taken to court.

In the quote, contending rationality claims are delegitimized through a discursive strategy of

scientization. Actors with alternative risk definitions are depicted as interest-driven, irresponsible

deniers (with the implicit connotation of Holocaust denier) with epistemically-vacuous and immoral,

even criminal, demands. Similarly, in a two-page interview with Al Gore113 legitimate demands

informed by “peer-reviewed research that is executed by scientists who are respected by their

colleagues and that send in their articles to peer reviewed journals” on the one hand are

differentiated from the illegitimate demands of “the anti-lobby […] “eccentrics producing fake

science” […] “conservative ideologists” […] “the few loonies who accept money from an oil company

and then tell their stories”, on the other.

Journalists of De Standaard do not make this differentiation between scientists and skeptics.

Disagreement about climate science is relegated to the opinion-pages. In “The greenhouse

phenomenon: between denialism and collaboration114”, an epidemiologist differentiates rationality

from belief and emotions, criticizing the “religious atmosphere” and “fashionable doom scenario’s”

112 We’ve been announcing what Al Gore says for many years. Only he has nicer graphs, Van Holen,

04/11/2006, p.17. For a similar discursive construction: Van Holen, Climate change ‘worse than

previously thought’, 04/11/2006, p.21

113 Carpentier & Temmerman, With this film I manage to do what I failed to as a politician, 10/10/2006, p.1

114 Bonneux, 18/11/2006, p.64


https://theieca.org

of 121




of the IPCC. In “Leave the climate to the climatologists115”, another op-ed, a climatologist involved

in the IPCC delegitimizes the position of the epidemiologist again as “bad science”.

De Morgen( “Kyoto cannot wait anymore116”)and De Standaard (“Global warming can cost the world

economy up to 5.5 trillion euro117”)also devote one article to the cost-benefit analysis of the Stern

Review about the economics of climate change commissioned by the British Labor government.

This famous report highlights the high economic costs of climate change. Both articles reproduce

the report’s core message that “it is cheaper to mitigate greenhouse gases now than to adapt to

the consequences later”. The legitimization of action on climate change in the present as affordable

and the delegitimization of inaction as unaffordable entails a new understanding of the discursive

strategy of economization, because in the first critical discourse period, it was mainly used to

delegitimize action and legitimize inaction. This strategy of economization is repeated in five more

articles in De Morgen118 and two in De Standaard119. It is interesting to note that the article in De

Morgen on the Stern Review makes a direct link between the conclusions of this report and further

engagement through Kyoto in the headline, while De Standaard does not. Hulme (2009:115-140)

and Machin (2013:16-20) have argued that cost-benefit analyses such as the Stern Review,

neutralize disagreement, implying that there is no antagonism between economic development and

environmental protection. Furthermore, they naturalize particular “economical” choices, such as

carbon markets, by concealing the value judgments about the rights of future generations and

predictions about the evolution of the climate and economic growth, which inform its eventual

conclusions.

115 Lefebvre, 20/11/2006, p.64

116 Vuylsteke, De Morgen, 30/10/2006, p.7

117 Hinsliff, De Standaard, 30/10/2006, p.2

118 Planning bureau: protecting the climate delivers 27 000 jobs, Decoo, 25/10/2006, p.9; We’ve been announcing what Al Gore says for many years. Only he has nicer graphs, Van Holen, 04/11/2006, p.17; Nairobi must pave way for post-Kyoto framework, Delputte 06/11/2006, p.15; Kofi Annan and Belgian housewife for a better climate, Debusschere, 16/11/2006, p.4; Climate exchange contributes to reduction of CO2, Koster, 08/11/2006, p.31

119 Suddenly everybody sees the impending apocalypse, Minten & Verhoeven, 02/11/2006, p.30; Costs

disasters can go up to 1000 billion, Reuters, 15/11/2006, p.3


https://theieca.org

of 121




Climate Negotiations

De Morgen and De Standaard devote respectively 14 and 12 articles to the Nairobi climate summit.

In De Morgen, seven different journalists write about the summit. In De Standaard, all articles about

the summit are written by Minten.

In De Morgen, the deliberate support for the UN climate process is confirmed throughout the

coverage. In the run-up to the summit, both the Stern Review (“Kyoto cannot wait anymore120”) and

the annual Energy Outlook of the International Energy Agency (IEA) (“Even Kyoto does not save the

climate121”) are invoked, using a discursive strategy of scientization, to legitimize a strict follow-up

to Kyoto. By stressing both the urgency and insufficiency of Kyoto, further action is legitimized in

this context. The IEA report’s claim that “nuclear energy is essential to tackle climate change” is

challenged by environmentalist Claeys of the Bond Beter Leefmilieu, the peak organization of

Flemish environmental NGO’s, who criticizes “the very conservative assumptions of the IEA”. The

criticism of nuclear energy indicates a discursive shift in the discourse of the newspaper, which can

be explained by the departure of science journalist Bogaert. Coverage of these reports in De

Standaard does not constitute any link between science and Kyoto. In “IEA portrays a clean energy

future 122 ”, a frame of techno-optimism is central, which stresses the importance of energy

efficiency and the rise of nuclear and renewable energy production, rather than a regulatory cap on

emissions123.

In De Morgen, in “Nairobi must pave way for post Kyoto-framework124”, published on the first day

of the conference, it is argued that the summit should take the first step towards a new agreement

for a follow-up to Kyoto (“The conference must prepare the world for the post-Kyoto-era, but

consensus is completely missing)”. The call for action is reinforced by a large picture of activists

“protesting for far-reaching measures against global warming” on a beach, forming an umbrella

and the message: “stop global warming”.

120 Vuylsteke, De Morgen, 30/10/2006, p.7

121 Decoo, 08/11/2006, p.5

122 Sertyn, 08/11/2006, P.17

123 For a similar discursive construction in De Standaard see: Kyoto does not have to damage the economy, 25/10/2006, p.12; Nuclear phasing out inevitably on the table in 2007, Verschelden, 31/10/2006, p.4; Phasing out damages the economy, Samyn, 17/11/2006, p.6

124 Delputte, 06/11/2006, p.5


https://theieca.org

of 121




In De Standaard, the newspaper’s pessimism towards the viability of a binding regulatory

agreement and hostility towards the UN climate process is also confirmed throughout the coverage

of the conference. Optimism about technological innovation and pessimism about an international

regulatory approach through the UNFCCC remains the central storyline throughout the coverage of

the summit. In the editorial, “Suddenly everybody sees the impending apocalypse125”, published one

week before the start of the COP, Verhoeven and Minten differentiate between the “political Kyoto,

which is a consensus model and has the disadvantage of going very slow” and progress through

science and technology: “Scientists show that big changes will have to come from ambitious,

technological innovation projects”. In “Technology must save the world. Why the travelling circus of

environmental diplomats is failing 126”, a large analysis article on the first day of the conference,

Minten pre-empts the summit as an irrational belief which impedes rational policy-making, using

the exact same words as Wouters in 2000, representing it as the “high mass of the climate”, which

starts “under a bad constellation”, about which “expectations are not high”. On the other hand, he

states that “new technologies have to make the difference” in a bullet point in the introduction.

However, it remains unclear what “new technologies” Minten refers to and how and when these will

replace the old ones. By contrasting “technology” with “the high mass of the climate”, he

undermines the only international framework to reduce greenhouse gases and implicitly

delegitimizes the latter as anti-technology (which it is not). The question is not whether we turn for

technology in the mitigation of greenhouse gases; the question is whether we can assume that

market incentives will produce these technologies freely, of their own accord. The question is also

whether they will do so in time, or whether political mobilization and action is required. This is a

political question.

In 2000-2001, all journalists from both newspapers (apart from De Morgen’s Bogaert) were critical

of the inclusion of carbon trading in the Kyoto-protocol. However, anno 2006, this criticism has

disappeared and both newspapers endorse the Clean Development Mechanism127 (CDM), albeit for

different reasons. In “Climate summit must help Africa obtain green power” in De Morgen, the

125 02/11/2006, p.30

126 08/11/2006, p.26

127 The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is a market mechanism set up under the Kyoto Protocol which allows industrialized countries to offset their emission reduction targets by investing in environmental projects in developing countries. CDM means a shift away from binding emission reduction at the source to a market-based approach in combination with a focus on technological innovation (Sandbag,2011).


https://theieca.org

of 121




instrument is framed as a solidarity mechanism which helps developing countries. Claeys, the

representative of the Flemish federation of environmental NGO’s, is awarded framing power,

representing it as an “innovative strategy” with which “rich countries pay for the development of an

ecological economy in developing countries“, framing it as a “win-win situation”. Coverage in De

Standaard frames these mechanisms as an alternative to the regulation of greenhouse gas

emissions at the source. In “Belgian invests in clean technology in El Salvador128”, the government’s

first use of CDM to meet Kyoto targets is endorsed as a means to foster technological innovation.

In “Also forests can save the climate129”, a professor in forest ecology is interviewed, legitimizing a

program which makes use of market mechanisms to create financial incentives to protect forests as

“a win-win for Kyoto-norms, local populations and natural forests”. Criticisms of this scheme, which

would later develop into the REDD+ program130, or its potential downsides, are absent from the

coverage, neglecting the various social actors from North and South who have been fiercely

antagonistic towards the offsetting of emissions through the CDM and REDD+ for various reasons.

The outcome of the summit is criticized in both newspapers. In “After the summit in Nairobi: the

disillusionment131”, in De Morgen, the lack of a “working program to halt global warming after 2012”

is highlighted as a negative evolution, while the consensus on “climate funds” aimed at helping

developing countries to (i) adapt to the consequences of climate change, (ii) develop green

technologies and (iii), halt deforestation, are welcomed. In “Climate summit takes a laborious step

forward 132“ and “Climate hype withers away as results stay away133”, in De Standaard, Minten frames

the outcome as “poor”. He again questions the purpose of the climate summits, which he frames as

“mega-initiatives”, criticizing the “lack of clear and transparent agreements”. He awards framing

power to Albrecht, an environmental economist and member of think tank Itinera134, who advocates

128 Minten, 15/11/2006, p.8

129 Minten, 16/11/2006, p.23

130 The UN-REDD Program was established in 2008 and is the United Nations’ collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) in developing countries. Businesses and developed countries can offset their emission reduction targets by investing in the protection or planting of new forests. Critics on the other hand oppose “the commodification of nature” and related socio-ecological problems (Kenis & Lievens, 2012: 143-145).

131 Serneels, 20/11/2006, p.10

132 18/11/2006, p.14

133 20/11/2006, p.6

134 A self-proclaimed ‘independent’ think thank of mainly economists, which often advocates a more market-based approach to issues such as social security, migration, climate change, energy, taxation and government reform.


https://theieca.org

of 121




a national approach which focuses on “innovation” rather than an international regulatory

framework, which is deemed to be “unrealistic”. In this context, innovation refers to the assumed

creativity of the free market to spontaneously result into “climate friendly” technological change.

Leading Actors

7 out of 14 articles in De Morgen and 5 out 12 articles in De Standaard are entirely devoted to the

presence of Margaretha Guidone, the woman who organized a screening of An Incovenienth Truth

for politicians and accompanied federal environment minister Tobback to the climate summit, in

Nairobi, while only three are devoted to the actual negotiations between (groups of) countries

during the summit. Using the discursive strategy of personalization, climate stories are represented

as driven mainly by individuals rather than group dynamics or social processes (Boykoff, 2011: 101).

Debusschere from De Morgen even features three columns, titled “Margaretha Guidone in Nairobi”

about “the ordinary housewife” who gathered tens of politicians for the climate film of Al Gore and

who wants to urge world leaders “to challenge global warming stronger”. It is remarkable how she

is continuously depicted as an “ordinary housewife” or “a mother”. The invocation of “ordinary

people”, serves as a way for journalists to de/legitimize particular courses of action as good or bad,

right or wrong. Stressing her ordinariness, she comes to symbolize the vox populi, deprived of

particular interests or ideology, who provides the moral support to urge world leaders “to challenge

global warming stronger135”. Her speech at the General Assembly of COP 12 is published integrally

by both newspapers as an op-ed136. She concludes her speech as follows:

I know that the negotiations today depend on the thin line between the moral duty to tackle

climate change for the sake of the next generations and the political will and possibilities to

be able to do something about it today. For all these people, I explicitly wish to call to put

aside our personal interests for the benefit of humanity.

135 However, the course of action which needs to be taken, that what actually needs to be done to challenge global warming always remains vague.

136 Guidone, Message for a better environment, De Morgen, 16/11/2006, p.13; Guidone, In the eyes of Marco, De Standaard, 16/11/2006, p. 16


https://theieca.org

of 121




She is repeatedly quoted using a moral imperative (e.g. “for the sake of the next generations”) and

calling upon world leaders for collaboration across diverging interests and political antagonisms

and a moral consensus against climate change and CO2, the objectified and externalized ‘Other’. In

“Housewife on top137”, the deputy-editor of De Morgen puts forward a similar message in an

editorial: “If this country really wants to meet its Kyoto norms, than politicians won’t be able to do

that on their own. It will be everybody’s responsibility. For young and old. From captain of industry

and minister to housewife”.

COP 12 is the first climate summit in which a follow-up to Kyoto is discussed. While the discussions

during the first critical discourse period about the implementation of the Kyoto protocol were only

directed towards industrialized countries, COP 12 would also discuss responsibilities of developing

countries. Both newspapers slightly differ in their evaluation of actors and their assessment of

responsibilities.

In De Morgen’s “Nairobi must pave way for post Kyoto-framework138”, four groups of countries are

differentiated: (i) the responsible countries (“the climate-engaged EU and 35 other countries”); (ii)

the irresponsible countries who oppose Kyoto (“the renowned polluters such as Australia and the

US”); (iii) the “new” players (“fast growing new economies such as China, India and Brazil which

need to be convinced to contribute to the struggle against global warming”); (iv) and the victims

(“the African continent which threatens to suffer the most from global warming and is the least

prepared for it”). A new agreement would have to include the first three groups, but not African

countries. In contrast to six years ago, China and India are no longer seen as developing countries,

but as “growing new economies” who have the responsibility to reduce emissions too. The

challenge of the conference is to include these countries in a post-Kyoto framework. India and

Brazil are not mentioned anymore after that article, but China is put in into the category of the

irresponsible countries during the coverage of the summit. Together with the US, China is blamed

twice for the lack of strong and quick engagements and for obstructing the process. A first time by

UN secretary general Kofi Annan and environmental NGO’s who are cited (“Annan urged the big

polluters China and the US to ratify the Kyoto-protocol as quick as possible139”). And a second time

137 Pauli, 16/11/2006, p.2

138 Delputte, 06/11/2006, p.5

139 Kofi Annan and Belgian housewife for a better climate, Debusschere, 16/11/2006, p.4


https://theieca.org

of 121




in the analysis article about the end of the summit. In that last article, the responsible actors: the

UN secretary general, the party chairwoman of the Flemish greens and the Belgian and German

environment ministers are not only awarded framing power but are also differentiated from the

irresponsible actors: China and the US (“China and the US let their self-interest prevail over the

general interest. This threatens the good intentions of the rest of the world: China and the US are

two polluters of world format140”). Meanwhile, the representatives of these two countries remain

uncited.

Coverage in De Morgen continues to pay attention to the perspectives of developing countries,

especially African countries, framing them as the victims of climate change from a perspective of

climate justice. The outcome of the summit is also criticized from an African perspective by a Masai,

a nomadic East African tribe (“In Kenya that is plagued by drought, they find that western interests

way to heavy. This was meant to be an African conference, but it has become a safari conference”).

Throughout the coverage, special attention is devoted to the fate of African countries, because the

summit is set in Kenya. Two other articles focus on the demands of African NGO’s for “climate

justice141”. The three columns by Debusschere devoted to Guidone’s activities in Nairobi all focus

on the situation of local, poor Kenyans 142 . In sum, in De Morgen, countries continue to be

evaluated on the extent to which they contribute to emission reduction through the Kyoto protocol,

distinguishing between (i) responsible and moral actors who contribute to the UN climate process;

(ii) irresponsible, immoral actors who are not doing enough to reduce their emissions and who are

perceived to be blocking the UN climate process (US and China), and (iii), the victims of climate

change: developing countries (mainly African countries) and future generations.

In stark contrast to journalists from De Morgen, Minten (who covers the summit for De Standaard)

completely ignores the consequences for developing countries. Throughout the coverage, the

inclusion of the US, China and India in the Kyoto-protocol is continuously framed as essential,

while the role of Belgium is minimized (“The biggest challenge, lies with China and India. The

pollution in China is now almost on the same height as in the US, and will increase rapidly143” […]

140 After the summit in Nairobi: the disillusionment, Serneels, 20/11/2006, p.10

141 African protest against warming climate, Debusschere, 14/11/2006, p.10; And still Africa is on the right track, Debusschere, 18/11/2006, p.17

142 All by Debusschere: Smog and tears on the Massaï market, 15/11/2006, p.5; From the bio toilet in the slums to the international platform, 16/11/2006, p.5; A bio toilet for the slums, 17/11/2006, p.7

143 Hinsliff, De Standaard, 30/10/2006, p.2


https://theieca.org

of 121




“Belgian means nothing on a world scale. More important is what big polluters such as India and

China will do, who haven’t signed Kyoto positions144” […] “It is the intention that countries as the

US, India and China - the biggest emitters of CO2 will join Kyoto for the time being145”). By

equalizing the responsibilities of developed (groups of) countries such as the EU and the USA on

the one hand, and China and India (framed as “big polluters”) on the other, differences in historic

emissions, development, and per capita emissions, are ignored, in favor of emission reduction

schemes which preserve the economic power of the former. When countries eventually fail to come

to an agreement about a post-Kyoto framework, disagreement between “rich and poor” countries is

held responsible for the “impasse” of the negotiation process, blaming both sides equally. In

“Climate summit takes a laborious step forward146”, the German environment minister is cited in the

subtitle, framing both sides as self-interested (“A lot of talk about national interests instead of

climate interests”). In “Climate hype withers away as results stay away 147 ”, Albrecht is cited

uncritically (and his message is thus endorsed by Minten) about the leading actors as follows:

Imposing norms for every country through an international protocol is unfeasible. The big

developing countries will never accept that. Real reduction demands industrial guidance and a

reform of energy systems. This is no frivolous process and therefore a matter which countries

want to keep in their own hands.

In the quote, multilateral political action is framed as “unrealistic” and “impossible” for two reasons.

First, pessimism about the willingness of “big developing countries” to accept emission reduction

targets, implying that all countries have equal responsibilities in reducing CO2 and that “big

developing countries” are to blame for not agreeing on this. As a result, unequal power relations

and ecological debt are inverted. Second, pessimism about the willingness of “countries’” to take

courses of action which decrease their power capability. In sum, in De Standaard, all countries

144 Suddenly everbody sees the impending apocalypse, Minten, 02/11/2006, p.30

145 Technology must save the world, Minten, 08/11/2006, p.26

146 18/11/2006, p.14

147 20/11/2006, p.6


https://theieca.org

of 121




continue to be attributed with equal responsibilities and self-interested motives. The climate

change debate is no longer represented as the EU versus the USA, but rather as one between

developing and developed countries, while neglecting disagreement about alternative sustainable

futures within those countries.

Apart from the attention for Guidone who is portrayed as a sample of the worried public opinion

(see also: “Half of Belgians is worried about a changing climate148”), both newspapers continue to

represent citizens as victims or as individuals who need to change their behavior. In both

newspapers, journalists also use the period of heightened media coverage to publish articles which

focus on the individual behavioral changes citizens can undertake. For example, in De Morgen’s

“Minister Peeters calls upon every citizen to save a ton of CO2149” and De Standaard’s “How to

become rich from the climate150”, 30 tips are reproduced from a government brochure which

encourages each Fleming “to save a ton of CO2”. By focusing on the “little things that can be done

to make a difference”, such as putting the heating lower, and changing light bulbs, which save

money, these behavioral changes are used to appeal to consumer freedom and choice. These

articles frame citizens as “consumers” and limit their role to lifestyle changes, while other political

subjectivities are left out. This individualization and moralization of political goals implies that

climate change is the product of individual shortcomings and requires individual behavioral

changes. As the following headlines show, another two articles in De Morgen (“To a better world in

five steps151”, “Belgian prepared to consume less152”) and three in De Standaard (“Ten to do to limit

CO2-emissions and stop global warming 153“;”How many kilometers do you have on your plate? The

struggle against climate change becomes personal154”; “What do you do to save the climate155”),

put forward similar messages.

148Serneels, 20/11/2006, p.10

149 Van Holen, 08/11/2006, p.10

150 Minten, 08/12/2006, p.4

151 Decoo, 18/10/2006, p.7

152 Decoo, 30/10/2006,p.5

153De Foer, 11/10/2006, p.47

154Ysebaert, 04/11/2006, p.30;.

155 Redant, 16/11/2006, p.32


https://theieca.org

of 121




National Role

In the first critical discourse period, only environment ministers were cited on climate change. The

release of An Inconvenient Truth however sparks the attention for climate change of politicians

from all political parties. For a very brief moment, climate change is at the height of the political

and media agenda. However, newspapers treat national politicians quite differently. In evaluating

the national role, De Standaard appears to remain to be more reluctant about increasing efforts to

reduce greenhouse gases than De Morgen.

In De Morgen, calls for more action are endorsed and welcomed. Frequently, calls from politicians

are reproduced to leave aside political antagonisms and work together in the struggle against

climate change. In “Political bickering falls silent as Al Gore appears156”, the prime minister from the

liberal party is cited directly under a large picture of him, pleading for a cross-party consensus in

the fight against climate change, the objectified and externalized “Other”: “We have to put aside all

those contradictions and party political games. Only if we work together, we can get there”. His call

to “shift taxes on labor to pollution, a vision just made for liberals”, is endorsed. In that same article,

Guidone is quoted in the subtitle: “ I hope that the climate will be problem number one in each

party program”. Similarly, in “Leterme makes an extra effort in struggle against climate change157”,

Flemish minister-president Leterme is awarded framing power on his socio-economic summit about

sustainability and climate, which aims to involve business and civil society. He legitimizes action by

pointing to the potential economic benefits, arguing that Kyoto should be treated as an “export

opportunity”, rather than a “straightjacket”. In “After the summit in Nairobi: the disillusionment158”,

the analysis article about the outcome of the summit, green party chairwoman Dua is cited in the

introduction before Tobback, the environment minister, arguing that “Belgium urgently needs to

take the lead in the struggle against climate change”, implying that the government is not doing

enough159. Tobback is then cited after Dua, arguing that “Belgium is already a frontrunner. Just like

the rest of Europe. China and the US are failing”. The prioritization of Dua over Tobback, and the

endorsement of both claims, suggests that the journalist in question aspires Belgium to become a

“frontrunner” too.

156 Peeters, 31/10/2006, p.3

157 Van Holen, 13/11/2006, p.4

158 Serneels, 20/11/2006, p.10

159 For a similar discursive construction by Dua see also: Which truth is inconvenient, Dua, 31/10/10, p.16; Groen goes to elections with radical climate program, Van Holen ,08/11/2006, p.10


https://theieca.org

of 121




De Standaard is skeptical about the sudden political attention for climate change, framing it as “a

climate hype” in five articles. In these articles, it is argued that climate change is strategically

overhyped by government parties for electoral gain. By using the word “hype” to frame the sudden

rise of attention or sense of urgency, the social debate on climate change is framed as an

exaggerated and alarmist, rather than a rational, response to climate change. In “Squabbling for

the climate160”, an analysis article by political journalist Brinckman, the social debate about climate

change is reduced to a “propaganda war” between politicians who strategically use the climate,

which has become a “hot topic”, to gain votes, thereby reducing political behavior to a power

struggle for votes. This reduces political or ideological conflict about how to act on climate change

to party political “squabble”, implying that politicians are motivated only by their self-interest and

the short term, rather than the stability of the climate in the long term. Similarly, in “Never before

did a prime minister sell so much hot air161”, green party chairwoman Dua is interviewed, arguing

that the government is only interested in votes, rather than actual policy, highlighting the “empty

promises” of the government.

Two weeks before the start of the summit, the Federal Planning Bureau publishes a cost-benefit

analysis about the economic consequences of further emission reductions after Kyoto ends. De

Morgen’s “Planning Bureau: protecting the climate delivers 27 000 jobs162” uncritically reproduces

(thus endorses) the report’s findings on how the introduction of energy taxes could deliver jobs on

the condition that they are compensated by a reduction in labor taxation, thereby legitimizing

further anticipatory emission reductions as economically beneficial. Minten of De Standaard is much

more reluctant about the report in “Kyoto does not have to harm economy. Industry not

convinced163”, awarding framing power to both the Federal Planning Bureau and a spokesman for

Fedichem, the association of chemical industries, who criticizes the findings of the report. The latter

is cited, advocating a global carbon market and delegitimizing further internal mitigation targets

without the participation of developing countries and the USA, in order to preserve national

competitiveness, using a strategy of economization:

160 Brinckman, 18/11/2006, p.66

161 Verschelden, 31/10/2006, p.4

162 Decoo, 25/10/2006, p.9

163 25/10/2006, p.12


https://theieca.org

of 121




The industry also points out that a global approach is essential. All industrial countries and all

upcoming countries-including China, India, Brazil, have to step into Kyoto if one wants it to

be effective. ‘Europe cannot go further on its own. That would be economic suicide’.

Similarly, in “Flanders takes a huge CO2 leap164”, Minten stresses that “we are on the right track”

and makes the comparison with the inaction in the US, by citing the US representative in Nairobi,

who announces that there will be no change in the American position. A week later, in “Belgium

rises on climate performance index165”, Minten focuses on the rise of Belgium in the yearly Climate

Performance Index of Climate Action Network (CAN), an international network of environmental

NGO’s, highlighting this as a positive evolution in the introduction (“Belgium is on the 15th place of

climate efforts. That is four places better than last year”). The positive evolutions of Belgium are

contrasted with those of “the big polluters” China and the US, who belong to “the worst achievers”.

The combination of optimism about Belgium’s efforts and pessimism about the efforts of “the big

polluters” implies that Belgium should not increase its efforts the reduce greenhouse gases if other

countries do not either. This excuses national inaction as long as not all countries take on equal

emission reduction targets.

A different assessment of Belgium’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gases can be found in De

Morgen. In “Environmental policy Belgium not ambitious enough. Flanders and Wallonia fail in

emissions trading166”, a half-pager in the national affairs section, CAN’s “Climate performance index”

is also mentioned in a few lines. In stark contrast to De Standaard, Belgium’s rise on the list is

downplayed, stressing that “Belgium still scores very badly on the level of emissions”. A report of

the “prestigious” Fraunhofer Institute (a German research center), which evaluates countries’ use of

carbon-markets, is highlighted and endorsed instead, arguing in the introduction that “Belgium and

15 other EU member states ask too little efforts from the industrial sector to curb CO2 emissions”.

The government is criticized for not adequately organizing its emissions trading system and

granting to many allowances to emit CO 2 to the industrial sector. Carbon trading as such is never

questioned as a policy mechanism.

164 07/11/2006, p.3

165 Minten, 14/11/2006, p.44

166 Dupont, 14/11/2006, p.5


https://theieca.org

of 121




In sum, in endorsing politicians who want Belgium to take more action, in stressing the lack of

‘climate ambition’ of the government and in highlighting the economic benefits of domestic

emission reduction, coverage in De Morgen is found to legitimize an increase in national efforts to

reduce greenhouse gases. In stressing the efforts that Belgium has already made compared to

other countries, in minimizing the impact Belgium could possibly have on the global decrease in

greenhouse gases and in representing the issue as a “hype” which politicians opportunistically use

for electoral gains, coverage in De Standaard validates events in a way that preserve the national

status-quo rather than advocate further anticipatory reduction of emissions.


https://theieca.org

of 121




IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: February-November 2007

Introduction

De Morgen and De Standaard devote respectively 41 and 33 articles exclusively to the release of

the Fourth IPCC report in 2007, continuing the peak in climate change coverage since the fall of

2006. This is an almost 600% and 800 % increase in coverage, compared to the 7 and 4 articles on

the release of the Third IPCC report in 2001, which indicates a stark increase in significance of

climate change as a topic for both newspapers by 2007. The three Working Groups physical aspects

(WG-1), impacts and adaptation (WG-2) and mitigation (WG-3) released their respective summary

for policy-makers in the first half of 2007 on 02/02/2007, 06/04/2007, 04/05/2007. The Synthesis

Report was published on 17/11/2007. On 11/10/2007, both Al Gore and the IPCC are awarded the

Nobel Peace Prize. These five events are covered by respectively 13, 8, 5, 2 and 5 articles in De

Standaard and 12, 9, 5, 7, 8 articles in De Morgen. It is interesting to note that the first two reports

about the causes and consequences of climate change gather much more attention than the report

about the mitigation of climate change.

Table 7: Amount of articles about the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC, 2007 in De Morgen and De Standaard

Report Working Group I on the Physical Science Basis

The coverage of this report confirms the newspapers’ earlier assessments of climate change as an

actual and potentially catastrophic threat about which scientific consensus exists. De Morgen and

De Standaard devote respectively 12 and 13 articles to the publication of the this report, endorsing

and validating it. For De Morgen, Decoo is the leading journalist, writing 6 out of 12 articles. For De

Standaard, Minten remains the leading journalist, writing 5 out of 13 articles. Differences about the

Total

Regular

news

articles

Front-page

articles Editorials Op-eds

De Morgen 41 33 4 2 2



https://theieca.org

of 121




analysis of the physical causes and consequences between the newspapers have almost completely

withered away, with both newspapers awarding framing power to the same sources, such as the

two Belgian scientists who contribute to the report. Furthermore, calls for increased, but unspecified

(inter)national action are endorsed and highlighted in both newspapers, awarding framing power to

the (social democratic) federal environment minister (“I know the solutions to the climate problem.

Only I don’t know how to get elected after that167” ;“Super minister for the climate? I don’t say

no168”); the (liberal) prime minister (“Belgium does too little169”; “Verhofstadt is working on Kyoto

plus170”, “Belgium does to little”) and UNFCCC president De Boer (“A summit of world leaders is

needed this year171”).

The notion of dangerous climate change has also become much more prominent. Both newspapers

increasingly make use of the tipping-points metaphor, arguing that the world is heading towards a

point of no-return, after which Pandora’s box is opened and climate change becomes

uncontrollable and irreversible, as the following examples taken from headlines or subtitles

illustrate: “a climate tipping point is what we have to fear172”; “we can only limit the damage173”; “an

escalation cannot be excluded174”; “if we do not pursue a serious climate policy, we will cross the

point of no return: a situation in which the global warming reinforces itself175”; “it will be very hard

to limit global warming to 2°C176”. This pessimistic language generates a sense of urgency to act.

Limiting the rise of global temperatures to maximum 2°C compared to pre-industrial standards is

frequently put forward as the main target to prevent dangerous interference with the climate. This

target is frequently framed as a “scientific target” or “demanded by science”. However, the 2°C was

decided by the EU in 1996 as a policy goal and was largely a political decision (Hulme,2009:102).

World governments eventually officially adopted the target at the 2010 COP 16 climate summit in

167 Van Holen, De Morgen, 03/02/2007, p.12

168 Minten, De Standaard, 03/02/2007, p.10

169 Decoo, De Morgen, 03/02/2007, p.1

170 Minten, De Standaard, 03/02/2007, p.10

171 Renout, De Standaard, 03/02/2007, p.11

172 Van Kerckhoven, De Standaard, 01/02/2007, p. 4

173 De Rijck & Minten, De Standaard, 27/01/2007, p.26-27

174 Once the ice melts, it becomes inevitable, De Rijk & Minten, De Standaard, 27/01/2007, p.26-27

175 Let the world be dark for a while tonight, Jones & Keytsman, De Morgen, 01/02/2007, p.10

176 Decoo, De Morgen, 03/02/2007, p.14


https://theieca.org

of 121




Cancun, vowing to limit global warming to less than 2°C. This target conceals the socio-economic

and techno-environmental futures and political choices it entails to limit the rise of temperatures to

2 °C, relying exclusively on scientific language. As a consequence, the struggle for a different future

is scientized.

The anthropogenic causes of climate change are represented as beyond doubt in both newspapers.

An interview with a Belgian glaciologist and contributor to the IPCC report illustrates this very

clearly: “UN report: human influence on global warming is obvious177”. Similarly, in “After the report,

the action178”, an analysis article by Minten for De Standaard on the day the report is released,

unspecified action is also legitimized through a discursive strategy of scientization: “(i) the UN

climate report is announced today, (ii) mankind is ‘very likely’ responsible for warming 179 , (ii)

measures are getting increasingly urgent”. Furthermore, by attributing responsibility to “human

influence” or “mankind”, responsibilities are homogenized, which confirms earlier identified patterns.

Similar discursive processes can be found in the lead of the special climate section of De Morgen

on the day after the report is released:

The UN climate report for which the whole world was watching out, tells it even clearer than

the 2001 edition that the world can no longer ignore that it is mankind which is responsible

for global warming and that warming is alarming. Now science has given us an unambiguous

warning, it’s up to governments, businesses and citizens to act180.

In the quote, the findings of the reports are validated. Climate change is linked to human activity181.

Furthermore, a scientization of climate politics is sustained through the invocation of a scientific

177 Carpentier, 30/01/2007, p.10

178 02/02/2007, p.20

179 For a similar discursive construction in De Standaard about the anthropogenic causes of climate change see: Man is making the Earth warmer, Minten, 02/02/2007, p.1; The question mark is gone, Van Kerckhoven, 01/02/2007, p. 4

180 The UN climate report, Decoo, 03/02/2007, p.12

181 For a similar discursive construction in De Morgen about the anthropogenic causes of climate change see: UN report: human influence on global warming is obvious, UN report, Carpentier, 30/01/2007, p.10; It’s almost certain: it’s our fault , Decoo, 03/02/2007, p.12; Decoo, Earth will become three degrees warmer, 02/02/2007, p.6


https://theieca.org

of 121




consensus about the anthropogenic causes of climate change as the basis to legitimize global

action, implying that governments, businesses and citizens have a shared responsibility to translate

science into policy. Second, climate change politics is transformed into a humanitarian moral

responsibility. Humanity is homogenized and universalized into a unified, global “We”, by

attributing responsibility to “mankind”, and calling upon “the world” and “governments, businesses

and citizens” to cooperate, leave aside their differences, and take action against the externalized

and objectified enemy to prevent catastrophe. What the course of action entails remains unnamed

and vague, implying that there is only one ‘right’ course of action. This homogenization of

responsibilities remains a constant pattern in the newspaper’s coverage. In his editorial “The world

is in a mess182”, news editor Eeckhout explicitly endorses and reproduces Tobback’s headlining

quote “I know the solutions to the climate problem. Only I don’t know how to get elected after

that183”, framing climate change as the consequence of our unsustainable lifestyles, rather than the

consequence of political decisions. Action then becomes a moral, individual duty to protect future

generations, resulting in a moralization of climate change.

He is just right. The question is not whether government leaders want to change their policy.

The question is whether we want to change our behavior. Are we prepared to trade in a

tangible part of our wealth and luxury in exchange for the science that future generations will

still encounter a livable planet?

Differences remain between both newspapers regarding the evaluation of “climate skepticism”. In

De Morgen, actors with alternative risk definitions continue to be delegitimized as epistemically-

vacuous and morally wrong, thereby reducing disagreement to disbelief in the existence of

anthropogenic climate change184 . In De Standaard, this differentiation is absent. In one article,

Minten acknowledges that “the consensus about climate change is continually increasing185”, but

182 03/02/2007, p.2

183 Van Holen, 03/02/2007, p.12-13

184 Reactions, Decoo, 03/02/2007, p.14

185 After the report, the action, 02/02/2007, p. 20


https://theieca.org

of 121




mentions the position of the Danish statistician Lomborg and argues that “the skeptics do not deny

that the climate is warming, but they are asking whether or not there are no more important world

problems to be challenged”.

Report Working Group II on Impacts and Adaptation

Working Group II assesses the scientific, technical, environmental, economic and social aspects of

the vulnerability to climate change on the one hand, and the negative and positive consequences

for ecological systems, socio-economic sectors and human health on the other. De Morgen and De

Standaard devote respectively 9 and 8 articles to the second part of the report, including two front-

pages articles in each paper. The discursive constructions of both newspaper continue to converge:

Climate change is anchored, linking it to various actual and future consequences in both De

Standaard: (“Warming leads to hunger, drought and flooding186”; “Melting glaciers and bleaching

coral 187 ”) and De Morgen (“Climate change threatens 1/3th of all plant and animal

species 188 ”;“Climate change is fatal for natural wonders 189 ”). Furthermore, both newspapers

frequently award framing to the Belgian scientists involved in the report and to the IPCC (vice-

)chair. Climate science is presented as certain and pessimistic as the following headlines taken from

the front-page show: (“Warming leads to hunger, drought and flooding 190 ”, “Climate change

threatens 1/3th of all plant and animal species”191 ; “Youngest UN report again alarming. Only

adaptation can save humanity from the climate192”).

For the first time however, De Standaard frames developing countries as the victims of climate

change too (“Climate takes a heavy toll in the South193”). In “Climate funding for the third world

must come from us194”, the president of aid NGO 11 11 11 is interviewed about the report, arguing

that the “industrial countries must take their responsibilities”, calling for more funding from

industrialized countries to undertake adaptational measures in developing countries. This

186 Minten, 07/04/2007, p.1

187 Minten, 07/04/2007, p.4

188 Swierstra, 06/04/2007, p.1

189 Swierstra,06/04/2007, p.10

190 Minten, 07/04/2007, p.1

191 Swierstra, 06/04/2007, p.1

192 Decoo, 07/04/2007, p.1

193 De Rijck, 31/03/2007, p.26

194 Ysebaert, 07/04/2007, p.5


https://theieca.org

of 121




representation of developing countries as “victims” and the call for extra funding for developing

countries indicates a discursive shift for De Standaard. It needs to be noted that these two articles

are not written by the leading journalist for the climate summits, Minten.

Small difference do remain between De Morgen and De Standaard, regarding the justice aspect of

climate change. Not only does the former pay more attention to it (six articles compared to two in

De Standaard), coverage in De Morgen also pays more attention to the role of the global North or

industrialized countries in general in causing the problem. In “UN climate report is crystal clear:

Poor countries are the victims195”, investments in adaptation and resilience in developing countries

are legitimized from the perspective of climate justice. In the subtitle, a Stanford researcher is

quoted: “Catastrophes are never democratic. On the Titanic, a lot more people from the cheap deck

died”. In this quote, climate change is represented as a problem which increases inequalities

between rich and poor countries. Rich countries are represented as the largest emitters, hence,

responsible for causing climate change. Second, they are hit less by global warming and have more

capabilities to adapt to the consequences of climate change:

The USA and Western-Europe are responsible for 2/3rd of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Africa on the other hand for less than 3 percent, and it’s is precisely there where 840 million

people will fight the hardest against extreme drought.

In “Youngest UN report again alarming. Only adaptation can save humanity from the climate196”,

the leading article on the front-page again highlights that “those who are already suffering will be

hit first and the hardest”, endorsing calls for climate funding by industrialized countries for

adaptational measures in developing countries197.

195 Daenen, 02/04/2007, p.7

196 Decoo, 07/04/2007, p.1

197 For a similar discursive construction see: IPCC predicts millions of climate victims, Debusschere, 03/04/2007, p.4; The future looks mainly dramatic, Decoo, 07/04/2007,p.4; Global warming makes all world problems worse, Decoo, 07/04/2007, p.5


https://theieca.org

of 121




Report Working Group III on Mitigation

Both newspapers devote six articles each to the report of the third working group. This report

focuses on different mitigation strategies and assesses all options within the scientific literature for

mitigating climate change through the limitation or prevention of greenhouse gas emissions and

the enhancement of activities that remove them from the atmosphere. The findings of the report

are again endorsed, albeit with different nuances.

In De Standaard, the findings are represented as a legitimization for a market-based approach,

which uses price incentives to lead to technological innovation. In “Politicians have to choose198”,

two “experts” are interviewed who contributed to the report: the WG-III chair, Bert Metz, and a

Belgian environmental economist, Aviel Verbruggen. Their recommendations are summarized as: “ a

plea for technology, taxes and carbon trading”. Similarly, in “Free market must increase price of

fossil fuels substantially 199 ”, a market-based approach to reduce greenhouse is authorized by

referring to “the IPCC scientists”. In this article, national initiatives to implement carbon taxes are

delegitimized using a discursive strategy of economization, implying that policies to reduce

greenhouse gases should be decided at the global level to preserve national competitiveness (“that

last part is a warning against international distortion of competition through carbon taxes”). It

focuses on the scenarios which investigate how the free market can increase the price of fossil fuels,

making renewable energy automatically profitable, without government interference in the markets.

It also highlights the need for government investments in energy efficiency and the continuation of

nuclear energy, which is supposedly “mentioned positively”. It argues that the costs of mitigating

climate change would only come down to 0.6 % of global GDP, which is the most optimistic

scenario of the IPCC report which entails the most minimal emission reduction targets.

Coverage in De Morgen is quite different than that of De Standaard. It continues to endorse stricter

regulatory emission reduction targets and challenges the idea that technological progress will

automatically solve climate change. A week before the official version of the report is released, a

draft version of the report is leaked which includes the production of nuclear energy as an option

to mitigate greenhouse gases. In “Draft version UN climate report sees salvation in nuclear

energy 200 ”, various environmental NGO’s are awarded framing power to challenge this option

198 Ghijs, 05/05/2007, p.6-7

199 Desmet, 27/04/2007, p.10

200 Debusschere, 30/04/2007, p.2


https://theieca.org

of 121




arguing in the introduction that “nuclear energy is expensive and dangerous, not sustainable. If the

UN would recommend that then the end is near”201. In “Tackling warming only costs 3 percent of

GDP202”, the authority of science is invoked, awarding the IPCC chair framing power, legitimizing

the most drastic anticipatory mitigation scenario as necessary and affordable. The article highlights

one set of scenarios, the so-called category I scenario, framing it as the “most desirable scenario

from an ecological perspective”, ignoring other scenarios. This set of scenarios start from the most

pessimistic assumptions about the impacts of climate change and implies the most far-reaching

action. According to the article, the report argues that “the world should urgently act within the

next twenty years and CO2 levels should decrease with 50 to 85 % by 2050”. This discursive

construction conceals which political choices this entails. In “Europe and China quarrel about cost

climate struggle203”, the “more ambitious” EU who advocates a higher cost (and therefore more

action) is positioned against the self-interested Chinese government “which refuses to take on too

much efforts in the struggle against global warming”. This discursive construction conceals the

inequalities in historical emissions, development and emissions per capita, which inform China's

position. The article is also accompanied by a picture of a traffic jam in Beijing.

The Nobel Peace Prize

When Al Gore and the 2000 contributors to the IPCC are awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, De

Standaard and De Morgen devote respectively four and eight articles to the event. Although both

endorse the decision of the committee, small but important differences remain prevalent.

In De Morgen, the prize is seen as a final award for the scientific consensus and an extra call to

politicians to translate the scientific consensus into an international climate agreement. The prize is

not only seen as the final legitimization of “action” on climate change, but also as the final

delegitimization of “climate skepticism”. In De Morgen, the climate change thus continues to be

represented as a (non-)debate between ‘the consensus’ and ‘the skeptics’, who are continuously

delegitimized. In the front-pager “Al Gore: a Nobel Prize, but no president204”, the chair of the

201 For a similar discursive construction in which the choice for nuclear energy is challenged see: A radio-active report, Jones & Keytsman , 04/05/2007 p.18; Belgium is too poor for new nuclear plants, Cochez, 04/05/2007; p.4, Nuclear energy is an option, but…, Decoo, 04/05/2007,p.4,

202 Decoo, 05/05/2007, p.10

203 Decoo, 04/05/2007, p.4

204 Rabaey & Debusschere, 13/10/2007, p.1


https://theieca.org

of 121




Nobel committee is cited, using science and a tipping-point metaphor to legitimize an unspecified

course of action: “Action is now necessary, before climate change escapes from human control”. In

the editorial “Obviously205”, chief editor Desmet explicitly endorses the decision of the panel. He

differentiates Gore and the climate scientists from “powerful industrial lobbies and their political

allies” and “lobbyists of industries”, arguing that the prize is an opportunity “to silence the skeptics

once more”. Similarly in “Finally the recognition that silences the skeptics 206 ”, a Belgian IPCC

scientist is interviewed about the prize, framing climate change “as a real and worldwide threat for

peace 207 ”, arguing that the prize closes the debate on climate change and is a call for

“governments to take global warming seriously”. Also “Al Gore follower”, De Gheldere is cited in

“The first chapter is closed 208 ”, arguing “that now there is consensus between the scientific

community, the business world and even president Bush. The skeptics won’t have much to say

anymore”.

In De Standaard, the event of the Nobel Prize is used to blame the upcoming growth countries and

China in particular for holding back action on climate change. In his editorial209, political journalist

Tegenbos of De Standaard, endorses the decision of the committee, but remarkably blames

“growth countries”, rather than industrialized countries, the economic framework or systemic

patterns of consumptions and production (“the booming economies of China and India are now

already leading to a scarcity of energy and recourses”). He recognizes the existence of dissonant

voices too (“Nobel Peace Prize of this year is not unchallenged”), suggesting that Gore and other

politicians have used the “climate hype” for electoral reasons. While Minten gathers several

supportive reactions of the decision of the Nobel prize committee, the criticism of environmental

economist Albrecht is highlighted above the article: “Chinese environmental activists can use this

prize better” 210. He argues that there is still a lot of scientific uncertainty regarding the actual

impacts of climate change and shifts the blame to China.

205 13/10/2007, p.2

206 Debusschere, 13/10/2007, p.3

207 For a similar discursive construction, see interview with former winner Maathai : World peace depens on struggle against climate change, Debusschere, 13/10/2007, p.3

208 Debusschere, 13/10/2007, p.3

209 Less the man than the message, Tegenbos, 13/11/2007, p.2

210 Reactions, 13/11/2007, p.2-3


https://theieca.org

of 121




Synthesis Report

On 17/11/2007, the Synthesis Report is released. De Standaard and De Morgen devote respectively

two and five articles to this report. Just before its release, both newspapers award framing power to

the WWF, arguing that various countries are trying to minimize and weaken the conclusions in the

summary for policy-makers as the following headlines show: ”UN-climate reports are weakened211”;

“WWF warns against a weakening of climate reports212” and “Criticism WWF on climate reports213”,

arguing that “political motives are playing to exclude particular aspects from the synthesis report”,

implying that politics is interfering with the scientific consensus and that the eventual summary for

policy-makers will underestimate climate change.

In “Consequences climate change irreversible”, De Standaard214 and De Morgen215 reproduce the

same press release from Agence France-Presse (AFP). The idea that climate change can result in a

tipping point is highlighted, focusing on the disagreement between European countries and the US

regarding the concept of irreversibility and whether or not “all countries” will be hit by the

consequences, awarding both sides framing power. Again debate between countries is kept at the

epistemic level, implying that politics is interfering with science. This is the only article about the

final report in De Standaard.

De Morgen however publishes four more articles in the wake of the Synthesis Report, which

confirm earlier identified patterns, such as (i) the delegitimization of the refusal to ratify Kyoto of

“big boogieman America” 216 using both a discursive strategy of moralization and rationalization, (ii)

highlighting the most alarming scenarios of the report using a strategy of dramatization, while

legitimizing action through scientization217, without however specifying how to decrease emissions,

and (iii), demanding more action from the national government, in terms of binding, long-term

targets for emissions reduction at the source and the development of renewable energy218. In these

211 Decoo, De Morgen,12/11/2007,p.1

212 Decoo,De Morgen, 12/11/2007, p.2

213 Ghijs, 13/11/2007, p.15

214 AFP, 17/11/2007, p.10

215 AFP, 17/11/2007, p.6

216 Debusschere, 13/11/2007, p.11

217 Somers, 19/11/2007, p.6

218 Somers, 19/11/2007, p.6; Belga, 21/11/2007, p.2


https://theieca.org

of 121




articles framing power is either awarded to the UN climate president, the UN secretary-general, the

IPCC chair or environmental NGO’s.

Summary

The conjuncture of the release of An Inconvenient Truth, weather events such as an unusually warm

fall and winter which could be linked to global warming, the release of the Fourth IPCC Assessment

Report and the integration of the issue as a central theme in the election campaign for the 2007

federal election, leads to unprecedented levels of media attention for climate change between the

end of 2006 and the beginning of 2007. Compared to the beginning of the decade, the

newspapers’ analysis of the physical causes and consequences have converged. All journalists in De

Morgen and De Standaard now link the anthropogenic causes and the dramatic, already

perceptible impacts of climate change to scientific certainty. For De Standaard, this analysis of

climate science differs from that of 2000-2001, which can be explained by two factors. First, Minten

has replaced Wouters as the leading journalist on climate change. He frames the increasing

scientific consensus as a “turn in the minds”, pointing to various recent authoritative reports to

explain this shift. Second, there is an absence of authoritative sources in the Belgian social debate

who openly criticize climate science. By 2007, only the Flemish far right and libertarians officially

question the anthropogenic causes of climate change. De Standaard and De Morgen remain

slightly different in their coverage of scientific uncertainty. Journalists in De Morgen continue to

explicitly delegitimize it through a discursive strategy of scientization. Such delegitimization is

absent in De Standaard, where uncertain assessments of climate science are still present here and

there through the citation of specific sources and in the opinion pages.

In both newspapers, action is legitimized through moralizing and rationalizing discursive strategies.

Despite the similarities, small but important outlooks on climate policy and technology continue to

shape the coverage. Coverage in De Standaard remains continuously pessimistic about regulatory

policies in general, and about the search for a follow-up to the Kyoto protocol within the UNFCCC

in specific. This pessimistic tone is combined with optimism about the possibilities of market

mechanisms to foster technological innovation and to decouple economic growth from pollution.

By attributing the blame for the failing negotiations to China and India, the newspaper’s adherence

to a homogenization of emission reduction responsibilities or a “level-playing field” is confirmed.

Furthermore, in stressing the efforts the EU and Belgium have already undertaken compared to


https://theieca.org

of 121




other countries, coverage is found to represent events in a way that preserve the national status-

quo rather than advocate further national anticipatory reduction of emissions.

In De Morgen, preferences for “technological fixes” have vanished from the coverage due to the

departure of science journalist Bogaert. All journalists of De Morgen now legitimize a global,

binding climate agreement as a follow-up to the Kyoto protocol, which includes the USA and China

and India. To this end, the legitimate demands of responsible actors (politicians, scientists,

representatives of international institutions, NGO’s, businesses, citizens) who are perceived to

contribute to a follow-up to the Kyoto protocol are positioned against the immoral and irrational

demands of irresponsible actors (such as the USA and Chinese government and fossil fuel lobbies),

and this for the sake of the victims of climate change (future generations and poor people in

developing countries), who have a different responsibility to reduce greenhouse gases than the

developed countries. In contrast to De Standaard, coverage in De Morgen endorses and prioritizes

an increase in national efforts to reduce greenhouse gases by stressing the lack of “climate

ambition” of the government.


https://theieca.org

of 121




COP 18 Doha: November-December 2012

Introduction

In this section, we discuss the framing of COP 18 in Doha by the newspapers De Standaard and De

Morgen and the online news outlet DeWereldMorgen. The 18th Conference of Parties took place in

Doha, Qatar from 26 November to 8 December 2012. Ever since 2006, the annual COP’s had been

preoccupied with finding a follow-up to the Kyoto protocol which would involve both developing

and developed countries. The COP took place in the aftermath of the US presidential elections in

which climate change unexpectedly played a role after hurricane Sandy caused large floods in New

York. According to Giddens (2011:189), after COP 12 in Nairobi, the COP 13 Bali climate summit led

to a framework which would subsequently have to lead to an international agreement at the COP

15 in Copenhagen. The outcomes of that summit failed to live up to the high expectations and

only led to voluntary commitments to reduce greenhouse gases by 2020. However, more

importantly, COP 15 established the Green Climate Fund (GCF) that from 2020 onwards would have

to raise US $ 100 billion annually to provide support for developing countries to limit or reduce

their greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. In addition, developed

countries agreed to deliver US$ 30 billion to developing countries in new and additional “Fast-Start

Finance” between 2010 and 2012. At COP 16 in Cancun, governments adopted the 2°C threshold as

the official global target to avoid dangerous climate change. Finally, COP 17 in Durban resulted in

promises about a new multilateral treaty that would have to be agreed on by 2015 and come into

force by 2020 (Death, 2012).

De Morgen publishes 89 articles on climate change between 24 October 2012 and 8 January

2013. This high amount of coverage can partly be explained by the release of a special climate

edition, two days before the start of the COP, which features 24 pages entirely devoted to climate

change-related themes. Debusschere, the chief editor of science and environment news is the

leading journalist for De Morgen, writing 30 out of 89 articles on climate change. In De Standaard,

23 articles are devoted to climate change. Foreign affairs journalist Minten remains the newspaper’s

leading journalist on climate change, writing 8 out of 23 articles on climate change, with science

journalist Stroeykens adding another 3. That De Morgen now devotes four times as much articles

on climate change than De Standaard, indicates a large difference in the assessment of the

importance of these climate summits and an important shift in comparison to the previous critical

discourse moments. DeWereldMorgen publishes 45 articles on climate change during this period

which come from a variety of sources. Considering that this news outlet publishes significantly


https://theieca.org

of 121




fewer articles per day than the traditional newspapers, this indicates that climate change is an

important issue for the outlet too.

Table 8: Amount of articles about COP 18, Doha, 2012, in De Morgen, De Standaard, DeWereldMorgen

Climate Science and the Causes and Consequences of Climate Change

Journalists of De Morgen, De Standaard and DeWereldMorgen devote respectively 15 out of 89, 6

out of 23 and 11 out of 45 articles to various reports about the causes and consequences of

climate change.

In De Morgen, climate change continues to be represented as an urgent and actual problem,

linking it to various actual impacts in five articles, while citing various climatologists from different

sources such as: the National Centre for Atmospheric Research about the link between climate

change and the increase in storms such as hurricane Sandy (“Global warming has reinforced the

impact of Sandy219”); the World Meteorological Organization about the “runaway freak weather” of

2012 (“The year in which extreme weather became normal220”); the European Environmental Agency

about the various ways climate change is already damaging Europe (“Red climate alert in the

whole of Europe221”); the Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet,

commissioned by the aid NGO DARA about the actual global damages climate change is causing,

219 Debusschere, 31/10/2012, p.6

220 Debusschere, 28/12/2012, p.12

221 Debusschere, 24/11/2012, p.3

Total

Regular

news

articles

Front-page

articles Editorials

Op-eds

& columns

De Morgen 89 71 2 2 14


DeWereldMorgen 45 39 / / 6


https://theieca.org

of 121




focusing on the costs for the economy (“CO2 costs world one billion euro annually222”); and research

by the Climate Change and Changes in Spatial Structure Research Project about the future impacts

of climate change in Flanders (“We must arm ourselves against a super storm223”). The findings of

these studies are affirmed. By stressing the idea of a scientific consensus, making links between

climate change and various actual impacts, using the simple present as the tense to describe

climate change and employing vocabulary such as “red climate alert”, “we must arm ourselves” and

“runaway freak weather”, climate change is framed as an actual, urgent issue. This sense of urgency

is used to legitimize action on climate change. In “We cannot believe our own eyes. Scientists

underestimated global warming for years224” and “World Bank expects warming of 4 degrees225”,

Debusschere covers “Turn down the heat”, a report of the non-profit consultancy Climate Analytics

and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research commissioned by the World Bank. The prospect of

dangerous climate change and the invocation of “scientists” are used to legitimize a global

consensus to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the Doha climate summit through a discursive

strategy of scientization and moralization:

To the negotiators, who from next week on will gather for ten days for the annual UN climate

conference in Qatar, the World Bank gives the following message: if no action happens, we

will leave our children with a world which is completely different than the one we know now.

It’s our moral duty to take care of this.

However, these articles do not specify how emissions should be reduced. Climate policy is not

linked to specific policy instruments such as carbon-trading, or wider ideological preferences and

interests, and is simply depicted as “action”, implying that there is only one rational way to reduce

222 Debusschere, 24/11/2012, p.3

223 Vandermensbrugge, 18/12/2012, p.6

224 Debusschere, 24/11/2012, p.4

225Debusschere, 20/11/2012, p.15


https://theieca.org

of 121




greenhouse gases226. It is important to note that the World Bank has been a longtime supporter of

carbon-trading mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gases, but this is ignored in the articles.

In De Standaard, Minten and Stroeykens confirm the newspaper’s framing of climate change as an

urgent issue. Coverage about climate science has become increasingly pessimistic about the issue

(“Best climate models are pessimistic: Even warmer than previously thought227”). Four articles link

climate change to various actual impacts, citing findings by: the National Center for Atmospheric

Research, insurance company Munich Re and the OECD about the increasing costs of natural

disasters due to climate change (“An increasingly amount of people are getting wet feet228”); two

articles by the European Environmental Agency (“Climate shift already visible in Europe229”); and

climatologic research published in the journal Science Environment Letters about the melting of

pole ice (“How fast is pole ice really melting 230”). By constantly using the present tense and

stressing that “climate change is worse than previously thought”, these articles portray a fatalistic

assessment of climate change as an inevitable, irreversible process. Furthermore, these reports are

never linked to calls for (higher) emission reduction. The “Turn down the heat” report is covered in

one article and is used to authorize a fatalistic framing of climate change, representing it as a fated

development (“An increase with four degrees, which is becoming ever more likely according to a

report of the World Bank, means a succession of heath waves, failed harvests, floods and

droughts231”). The only time politics is mentioned is to constitute a dichotomy between failing,

divided politics on the one hand and consensual, value-fee climate science (“The past days

presented a nice example again of the cleavage between science and politics232”) on the other.

In DeWereldMorgen, 11 articles constitute a direct link between climate change and various

impacts all over the world. All these articles originate from Inter Press Service (IPS), an international

alternative news agency which explicitly aims to (i) give prominence to the voices of marginalized

226 For a similar discursive process in De Morgen see: Greening economy must happen six times faster; 19/11/2006, p.1; Price Waterhouse Coopers pleads for radical climate action, 19/11/2012, p.4; Binding decrease of emissions is the only option to save the climate, 14/11/2012, p.9

227 Stroeykens, 19/11/2012, p.7

228 Minten, 06/11/2012, p.18

229 Minten, 22/11/2012, p.2 & 9

230 Minten, 01/12/2012, p.35

231 Is it already too late for the climate?, Stroeykens, 25/11/2012, p.16-17

232 How fast is the pole ice really melting?, Minten, 01/12/2012, p.35


https://theieca.org

of 121




and vulnerable people and groups, (ii) report from the perspective of developing countries, and (iii)

reflect the views of civil society (IPS, 2013). De Standaard and De Morgen do not publish any

articles from this agency. Three of these articles make links between climate change and actual

changes in nature, citing climatologic research published in the journal Science (“Tropical

phytoplankton digests warming harder233”), findings by American geologists (“Melting North Pole

Ice forces walrus to mainland234”) and NASA (“North Pole Ice breaks all records235”). Seven articles

make an explicit link between climate change and various consequences of climate change in

developing countries, in contrast to De Standaard and De Morgen, which do not highlight this.

Three of these articles refer to the “Turn down the heat” report of the World Bank (“Climate change

makes monsoon rains falter 236 ”; “A warmer world is a hungrier world 237 ”; “Coast is rapidly

disappearing in Vietnam238”). Not only do these articles focus on various impacts in developing

countries, but they also cite various ordinary citizens, and depict climate change as an issue which

reinforces already existing inequalities between industrialized and developing countries239. In none

of these articles, science is used to legitimize action on climate change. The choice to focus on

developing countries appears to be a deliberate editorial choice. In “Even the weather is racist. Or

why the one storm is not the other typhoon” on 30 October, published in the aftermath of

hurricane Sandy which garnered a lot of media attention, chief editor Callewaert criticizes the

selectiveness of Western, mainstream media regarding natural disasters, arguing that they tend to

value Western lives more than those in developing countries:

233 IPS, 29/10/2012

234 IPS, 15/11/2012

235 IPS, 09/12/2012

236 IPS, 11/11/2012

237 IPS & Leahy, 09/12/2012

238 IPS, 26/11/2012

239 For a similar discursive construction see: From Doha to Dakar food insecurity is the norm, IPS & Phataki, 05/12/2012; Cuban fruit growers adapt to salinization of the soil, IPS, Gonzalez, 20/12/2012; Drought and floods: a year of extremes in Sri Lanka, IPS, 02/01/2013; Who speaks about the 300 000 climate deaths? Doing nothing, is not an option, according to 11.11.11, Van Criekinge, 29/10/2012


https://theieca.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society

of 121




When Westerners are threatened by a storm this is followed minute per minute with

restrained breath. When somewhere underneath the Tropic of Cancer people suffer from

natural disasters we don’t even know it.

Scientific uncertainty is also represented quite differently in the three news outlets. De Morgen, De

Standaard and DeWereldMorgen focus on it in respectively three, one and zero articles. In De

Morgen, alternative risk definitions continue to be delegitimized through strategies of scientization,

framing them as interest-driven and therefore unscientific. Articles in the newspaper continue to

position the right ‘consensus’ against the irresponsible and wrong ‘skeptics. In “Was I wrong before,

no I didn’t have enough evidence240”, the “opinions” from the “deniers” and “skeptics”, who are

linked to the fossil fuel industry, are separated from the interest-free ”scientific consensus” and

“research”. This discursive construction is illustrated in the following quote from a two-page long

interview with the Belgian IPCC vice chair, differentiating his “scientific cold-bloodedness” from “the

inertia of world leaders”, suggesting that science should inform policy and that all other views are

unscientific241:

At least, Muller is honest. Science shows him that he has no other option than to reverse his

standpoint. I think many will follow. It’s simply insane to be a climate skeptic today. You really

have to be deaf, dumb and blind or simply dishonest. Not a week passes without that climate

change shows its teeth and that reality exceeds our predictions.

Similarly, in “Important climate report leaked a year before publication242”, the leak of a draft of the

IPCC report on the blog of Alec Rawls243, who saw the report as evidence that climate change was

240 Vandekerckhove, 22/11/2012, p.16

241 Saying that it’s too late, I don’t participate in doing that, Debusschere, 24/11/2012, p.2-3

242 Van Calmthout, 15/12/2012, p.17

243 Rawls is a libertarian blogger who participated in the expert reviewing process of the fifth IPCC Assessment Report. He posted the report on the blog : http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/. The website title speaks for Rawls’ anti-ecologist stance.


https://theieca.org

http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/

of 121




caused by increased solar activity rather than anthropogenic activities, is covered. The article

endorses the official IPCC line that human activity is “very likely” to cause climate change and

stresses the fact that Rawls is a “climate skeptic” and “economist who opposes the limitation of CO2

emissions”, rather than a value-free, climatologist.

In De Standaard, one article is devoted to the leaked IPCC draft. Coverage in De Standaard, in

contrast to De Morgen, continues to disassociate organized climate skepticism from economic

interests and worldviews. In “Storm in a climate teacup244”, Stroeykens endorses the view of the

IPCC, separating the “climate skeptic bloggers such as Rawls who believe solar activity is the cause

of climate change” from the “climate scientists”. Stroeykens adds no contextual information on

Rawls apart from his dissenting position regarding the causes of climate change, keeping

disagreement at the epistemic level by concealing the underlying values which inform scientific

uncertainty.

In sum, this analysis of the news outlets’ coverage of reports about the causes and consequences

of climate change reveals that they all depict a consensual assessment of climate science, framing

climate change as a potentially catastrophic problem, caused by anthropogenic activities with actual

consequences about which scientific certainty exists. However, important and interesting differences

remain prevalent. In De Morgen, coverage regarding climate science deploys science to legitimize

(further unspecified) emission reduction policies by policy-makers, differentiating scientific actors

and demands from unscientific actors and demands. In De Standaard, climate change is

constructed as an inevitable and in many ways already irreversible process, positioning the dire

predictions of climate science against failing climate politics. In DeWereldMorgen, climate change is

depicted as a problem which reinforces existing inequalities between developing and developed

countries.

Negotiating Process

De Morgen, De Standaard and DeWereldMorgen devote respectively 28/89, 7/23, 10/45 articles to

the summit. This means that each news outlet devotes about a third of its total coverage to the

summit itself, and as a result, uses the opportunity of the COP to publish other articles about

climate change too.

244 17/12/2012, p.9


https://theieca.org

of 121




In journalistic coverage about the summit in De Morgen, a re-occurring narrative can be found

which combines the newspaper’s continued support of the climate negotiations and binding

emission reduction targets with pessimism about the prospects of COP 18, after the disappointing

outcomes of previous COP’s. In her editorial “Rational245” which is published in the newspaper’s

special climate edition, Debusschere legitimizes consensus at the Doha summit to prevent the

externalized, impending catastrophe (“On Qatar’s capital Doha around 200 countries under

supervision of the UN have to make important steps to block global warming”), through discursive

strategies of economization (“The consequences of global warming are costing us already one

trillion dollar annually. Therefore, nobody with power can make it to halt green investments, decide

nothing or obstruct ambitious targets”) and moral and rational imperatives (“What else do we have

to tell our children when the house is on fire, coastal cities are flooding and freak weather has

become normal. That we had an irrational phase in 2012?”). Similarly, in “We must change our

course, now246”, Debusschere devotes the entire front-page of the newspaper’s climate edition to

the upcoming summit. She articulates her low expectations for the upcoming summit in the subtitle

(“Monday the eighteenth the UN-climate summit starts in Doha, but hopes are not high247”) and

simultaneously highlights the importance of urgent emission reduction, coordinated by the

UNFCCC, framing the climate change debate as follows:

A high speed train is rumbling on a rail way track on which a thirty tonner filled with

vulnerable and precious materials is standing still. With a donkey we are trying to pull away

the thirty tonner on time. The high-speed train is climate change. The thirty tonner, that’s us

and our planet. The donkey is the climate negotiations. […] Here close to us, one of the

industrial giants, Germany, shows how a country in the middle of crisis and under

conservative rule can set out a new course, which allows it to meet all its climate targets and

reduce greenhouse gases between 80 to 95 percent by 2050. New businesses, local councils

245 Debusschere, 24/11/2012, p.2

246 24/11/2012, p.1. For a similar discursive construction: Saying that it’s too late, I don’t contribute in that, Debusschere, p2;Forget the hangover of Copenhagen, Peeters,24/11/2012, p.22; UN climate summit 2012 in Qatar, Debusschere, 24/11/2012, p.3

247 This pessimism is continued throughout the coverage as the following headlines show: Great mistrust on climate summit in Doha, Debusschere, 03/12/2012, p.3; Climate summit Doha for indefinite amount of time continued Van Lommel, 08/12/2012, p.1; “Typhoon in Philippines cannot save the negotiations, Van Lommel, 08/12/2012, p.3


https://theieca.org

of 121




and conscious citizens are breaking down the power of the old, fossil or nuclear lobby. From

now on, the German energiewende takes away leaders the excuses that the political

negotiations are going to slow.

By using the metonyms “high speed train” for climate change and “donkey” for the negotiations,

the effects of climate change and climate politics are respectively maximized and minimized,

implying that a consensus for increased ‘”action” at the climate summit is absolutely necessary. By

stressing that there is an economic crisis and that Germany has a conservative government,

Debusschere aims to show that reducing greenhouse gases by constructing a different energy

policy is a pragmatic and possible political choice which should not be delayed because of the

impasse in climate negotiations. The comparison with the German energiewende represents action

against climate change as a political choice for a renewable future, positioning “businesses, local

councils and conscious citizens” against “the old, fossil or nuclear lobby”, which are revealed as the

interests which hold back a renewable energy future. Such a shift to a renewable future is

represented as an economically rational option through discursive strategy of economization,

maximizing the costs of emissions, while minimizing the benefits, authorizing it by pointing to

recent claims by various powerful, economic actors (“The carbon economy is saddling the world

with one trillion euro in economic losses already. It are then also military authorities, insurers, big

investors and consultancy giants that are taking a hard line”).

Further emission reductions are continuously framed as an economically rational choice throughout

the coverage, as the following headlines show: “Green cars can yield the EU a lot of jobs and

purchasing power248”; “Investors are now joining the struggle against global warming249”; “CO2 costs

world one billion euro annually250”; “Greening of the economy has to go six times faster251”; “When

even Big Money is lying awake at night252”). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that 9 out of 24

pages (so more than a third) of the special climate issue are devoted to green advertisements

248 Debusschere, 24/11/2012, p.8

249 Debusschere, 21/11/2012, p.7

250 24/11/2012, p.3

251 Debusschere, 19/11/2012, p.1

252 De Gheldere, 26/11/2012, p.16


https://theieca.org

of 121




about products and services ranging from ethical banking to recycled paper. On the other hand,

criticism about the use of market mechanisms is limited. In “Industry abuses environmental

subsidies253”, a report by the environmental NGO’s the WWF and Sandbag254 is covered which

argues for a reform of the carbon market, with a stricter cap on greenhouse gas emissions within

the carbon market (“A stronger price signal is the only way forward, says WWF”). These findings

suggest that coverage in De Morgen is supportive of a green market economy. The role of market

forces is only truly challenged in one article. In “The myth of the green economy255”, political

philosopher Lievens and political ecologist Kenis are interviewed about their book which

deconstructs market-based and productivist responses to climate change. In this interview, they

reveal a particular hegemonic project and the structural organization of the economy which is seen

as the structural cause of climate change (“the green economy or green capitalism is not the

solution to the climate crisis, but rather part of the problem” […] “The climate crisis is a problem

which is deeply entrenched in the way society is organized”). Furthermore, by framing the dominant

response to climate as a specific hegemonic project (“the green economy or green capitalism”), it is

suggested that other socio-economic futures are possible too. They argue for fundamental

alternatives which break with the current socio-economic (e.g. advocating public rather than private

ownership over the economy) and techno-environmental model and logic (e.g. advocating a logic

of sufficiency, by demanding a ban on the further extraction of fossil fuels) .

A similar discourse can also be found in Nic Balthazar’s seven daily columns during the

negotiations to be published on the second page of the newspaper. He is a film director and local

climate celebrity, who is at the summit to present the video of the “Sing for the Climate”-campaign

of Flemish civil society to demand a binding and fair climate agreement to reduce greenhouse

gases. He associates the low expectations regarding the summit to the dominance of the free

market logic and private fossil fuel interests, frequently challenging the corporate capture of the

climate negotiations (“The free market which has to save the climate. That is like a bartender who

has to operate a cirrhosis of the liver.256” […] “the richest oligarchs, the so called ‘filthy fifty’

continue to block every climate legislation. The fossil gang receives globally six times as much

253 Delputte, 16/11/2012, p.4

254 Sandbag is a UK based not-for-profit organization and think thank campaigning for environmentally and economically effective climate policies, with a focus on the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS).

255 Van de Perre, 24/11/2012, p.8

256 A concrete bubble in the middle of the desert, 04/12/2012, p.2


https://theieca.org

of 121




subsidies than all sustainable energy projects together257”). The following quote represents his

particular construction of the climate change debate very effectively:

Democracy is nevertheless simple. From the moment that populations scream harder than the

coal, gas and petroleum lobbies to do mainly nothing, everybody can copy what the

Scandinavian countries or Germany are doing. Making sustainable energy by themselves, and

becoming richer, healthier and better of it. Even if global warming would be nothing more

than an evil story, it would still be a game won258

In this quote, Balthazar problematizes the democratic deficit of the climate change debate,

representing it as a struggle over regulation. He explicitly calls for citizen participation in collective

action (such as the Sing for the Climate-campaign), differentiating between a popular movement

on the one hand and private interests which are blocking the regulation of emissions in Doha on

the other. Furthermore, his alternative is framed as a choice for a positive alternative renewable

future.

De Standaard’s pessimism regarding the political capacity to regulate greenhouse gases

internationally is confirmed throughout the coverage of the summit. In 2006-2007, this was

reflected in its preference for a more market-based approach to stimulate technological innovation.

By 2012, this is reflected in outright fatalism regarding the political capacity to decrease

greenhouse gases and prevent catastrophic climate change, representing climate change as an

already inevitable development. In contrast to De Morgen, not a single article mentions the

economic crisis, nor the financial costs of climate change or the benefits of climate policy,

disassociating the economy from climate change. In “Is it already too late for the climate?259”, a few

days before the summit, Stroeykens discusses its prospects. He constitutes a juxtaposition between

the dire predictions of climate science (“Last week American scientists published a comparative

257 When does the doctor come?, 06/12/2012, p.2

258 The fight for wind mills, 08/12/2012, p.2

259 24/11/2012, p.16


https://theieca.org

of 121




study of climate models from which appeared that the most pessimistic ones are the most reliable”)

and the failing responses of politicians which makes international regulation of greenhouse gases

unlikely (The most obvious idea, reducing emissions quick and drastically, is at this moment

completely politically unrealistic. Even if the climate summit in Doha runs smooth, the agreed

measures won’t be more than mere eyewash”).

Second, he discusses two technical alternatives to the regulation of greenhouse gases: geo-

engineering and adaptation. The Promethean techno-fix, geoengineering, is framed as politically

unachievable (“Politically, geoengineering is hardly on the agenda”) and potentially dangerous

(“Geoengineering is considered to be too risky by most scientists. No one can estimate the

consequences”). He concludes fatalistically, by arguing that there is no other “realistic” option than

adaptation to climate change (”What remains: keep on muddling through with half measures and

meanwhile prepare us as good as possible on the coming heat and its consequences”). This

fatalism regarding the political capacity to mitigate climate risks remains a central narrative in De

Standaard during the summit. In “Fiddling at the margins260” on the first day of the conference,

Minten’s fatalism is exemplified in the introduction:

Actually it is intensely sad and worrying. While almost all scientists say that climate change

will become out of control this century, thousands of diplomats, scientists, environmental

activists and starting from next week also politicians will come together to decide on an

agenda that they will possibly follow to maybe within a couple of years take measures that

will be amply insufficient to keep global warming within acceptable limits. Fiddling at the

margins, this is called.

By separating value-free consensual science from a homogenized, quarreling and hesitant ‘politics’,

climate politics is rationalized through a discursive strategy of scientization, suggesting that there is

one rational way of dealing with climate change and that politics is standing in the way of it.

Meanwhile climate change is naturalized as an inevitable development.It is remarkable that

260 26/11/2012, p.14.


https://theieca.org

of 121




businesses are not mentioned and held responsible for the stalling of climate talks, although they

are very present during climate negotiations. Deeper explanations are not given about why

politicians seem to be incapable to decide on deep emission cuts. During the negotiations the

summit is not covered in the newspaper, which again points to the decreased interest in climate

change in De Standaard.

In DeWereldMorgen, a re-occurring narrative can be found which links the pessimism surrounding

the COP to the particular interests, assumptions and values which inform international climate

policy. Three articles are devoted to the prospects for the summit. Although distinct in their focus,

they problematize the direction of international climate policy, by linking it to specific choices and

by providing suggestions for alternative courses of action. In “World on its way to 3 to 5 degrees

warming… that is the bad news261”, chief editor Barrez is pessimistic about the efforts of the

UNFCCC (“Again thousands and thousands are travelling by plane, a heavy emission cost, to the

next summit. Can they convince themselves that this displacement can be justified?”). In contrast to

coverage in De Standaard, this pessimism is not used to undermine the need for further emission

cuts. Quite to the contrary, Barrez advocates a shift away from “the travelling climate circus” in

favor of unilateral emission reductions at the source, prioritizing the mitigation of greenhouse

gases over national competitiveness, regardless of what other governments are doing (“Unilateral

steps are needed, because those that do nothing, will always pay the piper”). He legitimizes this as

a political choice for a good future by focusing on the positive prospects regarding health, energy

independence, and employment associated with a reduction of greenhouse gases. In the op-ed

“Ten possible ways out of the climate impasse262”, a parliamentarian from the green party also

expresses his pessimism about the efficacy of the summits (“Don’t expect salvation from multilateral

treaties”) and discusses various alternatives to them. He calls for citizen mobilization against the

interests which are threatening the climate (“We urgently need a second golf of ecological protests

against the corporations and regimes who unscrupulously choose their own profit before our

future”). In “Climate Summit in Qatar: what is there to expect?263”, political philosopher Lievens, the

co-author of the “Myth of the Green Economy264”, who writes three articles on the summit, is also

261 World on its way to 3 to 5 degrees warming that’s the bad news, 22/11/2012

262 29/11/2012

263 21/11/2012

264 This book was proclaimed as the ‘book of the month’ and was highlighted daily in the e-newsletter. It was also widely discussed within the news outlet.


https://theieca.org

of 121




pessimistic (“The expectations for the next climate summit are, after previously failed summits, very

low”), but links this pessimism to the marketization of climate policy and represents this evolution

as a specific ideological choice (“for as much action was undertaken, it went into the direction of

the ‘green economy’ in the most liberal meaning of the word”). In the article, it is not so much a

homogenized and objectified climate change which is problematized but the direction the climate

negotiations are taking. He expects that this marketization of climate policy through the

elaboration of carbon trading and the use of private rather than public finance to fund the Green

Climate Fund will only continue at a COP organized by “an oil kingdom”.

Throughout the summit, the climate negotiations continue to be linked to various interests and

values in DeWereldMorgen, as the following headline illustrates: “Oil industry is blocking Doha265”.

In the op-ed “From carbon bubble to emission speculation?266” by Kenis and Lievens, the pessimism

about the summit continues (“ As high as the need for a strong international treaty is, as low are

the chances they will agree”). They problematize both the role of the financial markets in causing a

“carbon bubble” as a structural cause of climate change (“It’s something which is hardly known, but

on the global stock exchanges 80 % more fossil fuels are noted than the planet can handle”) and

the increasing use of “emission speculation” in climate policy. The object of change is thus not an

objectified and externalized climate change like in De Standaard or De Morgen, but the role of the

market in causing climate change and in directing most climate policies. Alternatively, they also

argue for political engagement by citizens “to scale back the logic of the market, the financial high

technology and unlimited growth.” In the op-ed, “Climate summit COP18 in Doha: negotiating

about a Green Climate Fund or Green Corporate Fund?267”, the president of the South East African

Climate Consortium Student Forum warns against the “privatization of the Green Climate Find”, as

demanded by the UK and the US, and the dominance of industrial lobbies at the summit (“For too

long we have allowed that powerful companies and the interests of the world elite dictated the

direction of international climate negotiations”). He frames this debate about the GCF at the

summit as “part of a larger struggle to separate the world climate regime from principles of justice

and of common but differentiated responsibility”, which is unacceptable for governments of

developing countries.

265 Leahy, IPS, 06/12/2012

266 06/12/2012

267 26/11/2012


https://theieca.org

of 121




The eventual outcome of the summit is heralded by the UNFCCC in its press release (2012) as the

next essential step towards a global climate agreement on climate change. In De Morgen, it is

slated in five articles including an editorial and an entire third page for not leading to steps

towards a binding climate agreement. In “Climate summit ends in big disappointment. Even limited

expectations are not redeemed 268 ”, the outcome of the summit is reduced to “a symbolic

continuation of the Kyoto protocol”. In “Nothing has changed. The conference has failed269”, various

environmental NGO’s are cited who argue that the outcome of the summit “is even sadder than

previously expected”. In his editorial “The predictable flop of Doha270”, chief political journalist

Eeckhout homogenizes the responsibilities of the the climate change debate:

I know the solutions to the climate problem. Only I don’t know how to get elected after that.

These words from 2007, threaten to pursue Bruno Tobback271 during the rest of his political

life. That is sad, because Tobback actually made an honest analysis of the political incapacity

to come to a climate agreement. The predictable flop of Doha is the flop of everybody.

Politicians don’t dare to take measures in the long term, because we judge them in the short-

term.

Eeckhout attributes the failure of the summit to the workings of democracy, implying that

democracy serves as an obstacle to a rational handling of climate change. He frames citizens as

obstacle to an effective response to climate change. Second, a moralization of politics is sustained

by individualizing and homogenizing the blame for the “Flop in Doha”.

In the aftermath of the summit, the newspaper also publishes three critical op-eds with alternative

discursive constructions, linking the current evolutions to powerful interests and proposing

268 An article taken over by De Volkskrant: Persson, 10/12/2012, p.3

269 Hendrickx, 10/12/2012, p.3

270 10/12/2012, p.2

271 The former social democratic federal environment minister.


https://theieca.org

of 121




alternatives. In “The naïve ones of the climate272”, political ecologist Kenis, co-author of “The myth

of the green economy”, challenges the consensual, “green economy” discourse:

Who was it said that we are all in the same boat? The “we are all in this together” discourse

sounds right, but does not last out. It suggests that we are dealing with an equal struggle, in

which each of us is equally involved. In practice, this kind of discourse threatens to be an

obstacle to make an informed choice for an effective, and socially just climate policy. We

don’t just have to choose between a fossil fuel economy and a ‘green economy’. There is a

third option, which is skipped a little bit too much: that of a socially just and democratic

climate policy. A climate policy in which the big investors, banks and oil giants with their

dangerous, financial high technology are not in charge again. A climate policy which focuses

on social redistribution, a moratorium on the further exploitation of fossil fuels, the struggle

against the financial markets and for limits to growth. Only, and there lurks the conflict, this

implies we need to abandon ‘profitability’ as a criterion.

She challenges the moralization of climate politics in terms of the individualization and

homogenization of responsibilities and differentiates between alternative visions for society. She

names both the Promethean discourse of the “fossil fuel economy” and the emerging “green

economy” discourse as specific ideological projects, driven by particular interests and world views,

which she argues should be challenged. She puts forward an alternative discourse which she claims

to be more effective in terms of reducing emissions and climate justice.

The outcome of the summit is criticized and minimized in four articles in De Standaard. In “Climate

summit continued due to lack of success273”, a front-page article which is continued in a large

article in the foreign affairs section (“Climate summit is a flop again274”), Minten again combines a

negative assessment of the climate summit with, using a strategy of scientization to proclaim a

272 08/12/2012, p.30. For a similar discursive construction see the op-eds: Political challenges after Doha, Van Brempt, 11/12/2012, p.18; Hope in times of climate crisis, Goeteyn & Jacobson, 10/12/2012, p.17

273 08/12/2012, p.1

274 08/12/2012, p.36


https://theieca.org

of 121




fatalistic account of climate change and society’s capacity to reverse the problem, which

undermines further mitigation of greenhouse gases(“Meanwhile an increasing amount of reports

are coming out which state that the two degree threshold is not realistic anymore”). He discusses

the three main bottlenecks of the summit: “(i) climate funding, (ii) Kyoto II, and (iii), a global climate

agreement”. He concludes each time that “Doha does not contribute anything to solutions.” In

“Kyoto II ‘saves’ climate summit Doha275”, the outcome of the Doha agreement is minimized,

arguing that “Kyoto II only regulates fifteen percent of global CO2 emissions”, implying that

mitigation is only worthwhile if “big polluters” such as China and the US participate. In the op-ed

“See Doha and…yeah, what actually276”, a political scientist makes a Kafkaesque description of the

negotiations, concluding pessimistically that “things will never turn out well for the climate”. In sum,

all articles in De Standaard confirm the newspaper’s skepticism toward the UNFCCC’s capability to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but ignore alternatives to decrease greenhouse gases,

representing climate change both implicitly and explicitly as a lost cause to which society will have

to adapt.

In DeWereldMorgen, the outcome of the summit is slated as “a poor harvest” in “Drama in Doha:

carbon trade saved, climate change continues277”, an op-ed by Lievens. He frames the continuation

of the Kyoto protocol as a decision informed by special interests and ideological choices to

preserve the system of emissions trading (“emissions trading is in crisis, long live emissions

trading”), rather than an attempt to save the climate. As an alternative to “the failure of Doha”, he

makes a plea for a bottom-up “counter current of concerned citizens, critical climate movements,

green trade unionists and environmental activists” to reverse the marketization of climate policy.

275 AP, Bloom, Belga, Abbeloos, 10/12/2012, p.14

276 10/12/2012, p.20

277 19/12/2012


https://theieca.org

of 121




Leading Actors

In De Morgen, Germany is put forward as an environmental leader and example for other

industrialized countries in eight articles. In comparison to 2006-2007, the newspaper continues its

criticism of American climate policy, but has moderated its position on China. In “Four growth

countries challenge USA278”, representatives of the BRICS (China, India, South-Africa and Brazil) are

awarded framing power, uncritically reproducing and thus endorsing their demands about the

larger responsibility of industrialized countries regarding the reduction of greenhouse gases and

climate funding (“The four think that it are mainly rich industrial countries that have to make

promises to emit less carbon dioxide”). Similarly, in “US are the worst pupil of the climate class279”,

Debusschere highlights the negative score of the US while stressing the positive developments in

China (“World’s second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, the USA, scores the most disastrous

for its climate policy. China, the biggest emitter anticipates a big decrease of its CO2 emissions”).

Furthermore, the efforts of the EU are represented more positively in comparison to the USA, but

insufficient in comparison to what is necessary (“President Obama wants to reduce emissions with

three percent by 2020 in comparison to 1990. For the EU that is 20 percent, scientists recommend

40 %”). In “Typhoon cannot save the climate negotiations280”, climate change is personified by the

victims of a Typhoon which hit the Philippines. This discursive construction functions as a moral

imperative to both legitimize consensus and delegitimize Canada, Japan and the USA for their

retreat from the Kyoto protocol, depicting them as “the obstructionists”, “the most powerful

polluters” and “stubborn” actors who are standing in the way of a rational consensus at the summit.

When the summit leads to a “big disappointment”, the EU, China and the US are all criticized and

depicted as quarreling, divided actors:

The divided Europe was not able to make a stand and lost the goodwill from developing

countries it had last year at COP 17 in Durban. China was able to benefit from that and just

like in the old days it positioned itself as the leader of the developing countries to avoid

278 Debusschere, 24/11/2012, p.8. For a similar discursive construction: see Great mistrust at climate negotiations in Doha, 03/12/2012, p.3

279 01/12/2012, p.2. For a similar discursive construction of the US see: The president preaches climate consciousness, but his country chooses for oil and gas, Rabaey, 24/11/2012, p.18; Head Amerian Environment Agency quits, Debusschere, 28/12/2012, p.13

280 Van Lommel, 08/12/2012, p.2


https://theieca.org

of 121




making any kind of sacrifice. The USA continued to watch passively how Europe was

reproached. That is not completely fair: at least Europe is doing something, also financially281.

News coverage in De Standaard continues to portray self-interested nation states as the leading

actors at the summit. Furthermore, it continues to stress that emission reductions are only viable if

all countries have equal responsibilities to reduce greenhouse gases (including China, India and

other upcoming competitors for western industries), arguing that action is useless if the US and

China do not participate. In “Is it already too late for the climate”, Stroeykens highlights the

moderate efforts “the climate friendly” European “We” has already undertaken (“Although Europe

from all places has the most climate friendly politics and public opinion, we are stuck at best”) and

contradicts this with criticism of A homogenized American (“The political deadlock excludes the

possibility of meaningful climate measures”) and Chinese “Other” (“While the West is sauntering,

China is heading full speed ahead. The country is building new coal plants in high speed tempo”).

The article is accompanied by pictures of a family struck by flooding in Bangladesh and an

Ethiopian one which is suffering from severe droughts. “Poor countries” are depicted as the victims

of climate change. Calls for international climate funding to compensate for damage and to help

developing countries to adapt are endorsed (“The world will need political and economic

redistribution mechanisms for those who benefit of warming or fossil fuels, to those who are

suffering the consequences”). Similarly, in “Fiddling at the margins282”, the subtitle of the article

highlights that “Europe is isolated”, minimizing the effects of unilateral mitigation (“A Kyoto II

actually comes down to set up a non-smokers table in a bar where everybody continues to smoke”),

blaming the homogenized “big polluters” China, the USA and India, for their “inaction”. By stressing

the isolation of the EU and minimizing the efficacy of unilateral mitigation, this discursive

construction puts forward mitigation as only rational when all countries cooperate (i.e., the principle

of equal responsibility). Similarly, in “Kyoto II ‘saves’ climate summit Doha”, the failure of the

summit is blamed on “big polluters” US and China who are pursuing their national interest

(equating the private interests of the fossil fuel industry with the national interest) rather than the

281 Climate summit ends in big dissapointment, Persson, 10/12/2012, p.3

282 Minten, 26/11/2012, p.14


https://theieca.org

of 121




interest of the climate, minimizing the contribution of the unilateral emission reductions of the

Kyoto signatories (“Kyoto II only regulates fifteen percent of global emissions”).

Coverage in DeWereldMorgen focuses on the actions of both NGO’s and governments of

developing countries in their struggle against economic interests. In the articles by Kenis & Lievens,

grass roots organizations and NGO’s are positioned against world elites and private interests in a

hegemonic struggle to push climate policy in antagonistic directions, framing climate change as a

risk conflict between alternative political choices leading to different sustainable futures, calling for

citizen mobilization and climate justice as the following quote illustrates:

Climate change will increasingly become the social issue of the 21th century. If we want

change, we will have to organize from bottom-up, instead of letting us be put off by the

impasse the global elites have put the climate negotiations in283.

In “Youth banned to the margins on climate summit Doha284”, it is argued that the democratic role

of civil society in general and youth organization in specific is continuously restricted in favor of

industrial lobbies. Similarly, in “Oil industry is hampering Doha285”, “activists” are cited who argue

that “the paralysis of the climate summit in Doha is the consequence of successful lobbying by the

oil industry”. In “Anger and frustration at climate summit in Doha286”, an antagonism is constituted

between various representatives from civil society like Greenpeace and Oxfam and negotiators from

developing countries who are awarded framing power on the one hand and “Rich industrial

countries”, “developed countries”, and “big economies like the US, Canada, Japan and the European

Union” on the other, holding the latter responsible for the impasse at the summit. Coverage in the

DeWereldMorgen openly endorses and highlights the principle of common but differentiated

responsibility, evaluating the summit from the perspective of developing countries, constantly

arguing that industrialized countries should implement stricter emission reduction targets and

283 Lievens, climate summit in Qatar: what is there to expect?, 21/11/2012

284 Leahy, 04/12/2012

285 06/12/2012

286 Leahy, 07/12/2012


https://theieca.org

of 121




provide climate funding for developing countries. In “Is the climate broke?287”, a citizen journalist

covers a debate organized by aid NGO 11.11.11 featuring the Greenpeace president and the chief

negotiator for the least developed countries. The article reproduces calls by countries like Brazil,

China or Malaysia for “global equity”, arguing that “developed countries have been degenerating

the climate for decades” and that “Europe, North-America and Japan must do more efforts than

developing countries with similar CO2 emissions”. Similarly, in “China and Brazil demand 100 billion

dollar climate aid 288 ”, calls for increased funding by industrialized countries are uncritically

reproduced and thus endorsed, explicitly arguing that “developing countries think that the rich,

western countries are responsible for the historical pollution with greenhouse gases, and that

therefore they have to help poorer countries adapt to the consequences of climate change”. In

these articles, countries are thus differentiated on the basis of economic development, historical

emissions and per capita emissions, revealing underlying climate injustices.

In sum, in coverage in DeWereldMorgen, the climate change debate is represented as a societal

debate between grass roots movements, NGO’s and (leftwing) governments of developing

countries on the one hand and powerful economic interests and governments of industrialized

countries on the other.

National Role

De Morgen, De Standaard and DeWereldMorgen devote respectively 11, 4 and 2 articles to

domestic aspects of climate policy. In De Morgen, these articles confirm the newspaper’s support

for a larger role of Belgium in the reduction of greenhouse gases. Compared to 2000-2001 and

2006-2007 when respectively green and social-democratic politicians held the position of

environment minister, the newspaper’s assessment of the Christian democratic federal and regional

environment minister is much more critical. When the Flemish government announces its new

climate policy, a “climate expert” from the federation of Flemish environmental NGO’s, Mathias

Bienstman, is awarded framing power to criticize it as the following headlines from three articles

show: “Flemish government plans extra battery of measures for the climate. For transport and

agriculture hardly any new, effective targets 289”; “Flemish climate policy: make from the hurdle race

287 22/11/2012

288 IPS, 28/11/2012

289 Debusschere, 08/11/2012, p.9


https://theieca.org

of 121




a relay race. Where do measures stay for traffic, industry and agriculture?290” and “Five new busses

on hydrogen power will not be sufficient 291 ”. The new Flemish policy is not covered by

DeWereldMorgen nor De Standaard.

In De Morgen, coverage of the yearly Climate Performance Index of the Climate Action Network

(CAN), an international network of environmental NGO’s is used to criticize the Flemish government,

just as in previous critical discourse periods. In “Belgium drops to thirteenth place in climate

table292”, the representative from the federation of Flemish environmental NGO’s is cited again to

criticize the federal government’s climate policy. In ”13293”, the report is covered in De Standaard by

a small press release, which summarizes the main findings of the report in a neutral tone. In

contrast to De Morgen, the article does not highlight this position as a decline, nor does it criticize

government policy or call for further action.

Aid NGO’s 11 11 11’s report about the federal and regional governments’ (lack of) contributions to

the Global Climate Fund is criticized in all news outlets as the following headlines show: “Belgium

fails to fulfill its climate obligations294”; “Budget cuts on the climate are inhumane295”; “Belgium one

of the biggest climate defaulters296”; “Belgium spends 0 euro on the climate after 2012297” and

“11.11.11: “Belgium does not tend to come after its climate obligations298”. All these articles criticize

the federal and regional governments’ failure to meet its international promises regarding the

Green Climate Fund, endorsing and highlighting the claims of 11.11.11.

290 Bienstman, 08/11/2012, p.20

291 Van Horenbeeck, De Morgen 24/11/2012, p.6

292 Debusschere, De Morgen, 04/12/2012, p.2

293 Belga, De Standaard, 04/12/2012, p.9

294 Vandekerckhove, De Morgen, 10/11/2012, p.2



297 Hancke, De Standaard, 07/12/2012, p.7

298 Vanbenberghe, DeWereldMorgen, 20/11/2012


https://theieca.org

of 121




Summary

For the analysis of COP 18 in Doha, coverage in De Morgen and De Standaard is compared with

the alternative news website DeWereldMorgen. The analysis of the news outlets’ coverage of the

causes and consequences of climate change reveals that they all depict a consensual assessment of

climate science, problematizing climate change as an actual issue with potentially catastrophic

consequences caused by anthropogenic activities. Despite the large similarities, small but important

differences can be found in the news outlets’ analysis of climate change. In contrast to De

Standaard, journalists of De Morgen continue to delegitimize scientific uncertainty and climate

skeptics through a discursive strategy of scientization, blaming them for blocking progress about

climate change. In De Standaard, climate science is invoked to construct climate change as an

inevitable and in many ways already irreversible process. In the articles in DeWereldMorgen, which

report about scientific reports or the physical causes and consequence of climate change, the

devastating consequences for people in developing countries are especially highlighted,

constructing climate change as an issue of climate justice which exacerbates existing inequalities

between developing and developed countries.

The most important differences between the news outlets can be found with regards to the

framing of climate change governance. In De Standaard, the regulation of greenhouse gases

through international climate negotiations continues to be framed as an ineffective, doomed to fail

process, using a pessimistic tone. However, the technological optimism of the previous critical

discourse period is replaced by an overall fatalism regarding the capacity of politicians to mitigate

climate change risks. A rationalization of climate politics is sustained by positioning a value-free

scientific consensus against quarreling, opportunistic politicians who fail to translate science into

policy. This pessimism about both climate change and climate politics serves to legitimize a focus

on investments in adaptation to climate change, rather than government regulation of greenhouse

gases, assuming that technologies such as dykes can control the worst consequences of climate

change. Furthermore, in blaming “big polluters” such as China and the USA and in minimizing the

effectiveness of unilateral emissions reduction, news coverage continues to adhere to the principle

of a “level playing field” and to frame events in a way that preserves the national status-quo rather

than advocate further national anticipatory reduction of emissions.

Journalistic coverage in De Morgen has become increasingly pessimistic about the evolution of

international climate policy, but continues to legitimize a consensus at the summit by invoking


https://theieca.org

of 121




rationalizing and moralizing strategies. Furthermore, coverage in De Morgen continues to endorse

and prioritize the principle of common, but differentiated responsibility and an increase in national

efforts to reduce greenhouse gases by awarding framing power to various environmental NGO’s to

criticize the lack of far-reaching climate policies.

In its endorsement of the principle of common, but differentiated responsibility, its call for further

regulation of greenhouse gases and its support for increased action by national governments in

terms of mitigation and adaptation, coverage within DeWereldMorgen is generally found to

advocate similar policies as that of De Morgen. However, rather than naturalizing one course of

action out of moral, technocratic or market-oriented considerations, climate change is framed as an

issue involving key political choices between alternative socio-economic and techno-environmental

futures, drawing from three re-occurring politicizing discursive strategies. First, through the

problematization of particular policy choices leading to a particular socio-economic future. Second,

inequalities, assumptions, values and interests underlying the climate change debate are revealed,

transforming “action” into an ideological choice rather than an inevitable, necessary evolution. Third,

representatives from global civil society, grass roots activists and governments of developing

countries are differentiated from and positioned against Western governments and economic

interests, linking both sides to alternative climate policies and world views.


https://theieca.org

of 121




Conclusion

When we resume the central question, namely to what extent the selected news media are found

to provide space for a democratic, i.e. ideologically-pluralist, debate, by framing climate change as

an issue involving key political choices between alternative sustainable futures, then we can identify

three ideological cultures. These differ from one another not only in terms of ideological

standpoints but also on the extent to which they function as an arena which accommodates

democratic debate between these standpoints. Furthermore, we find that these three ideological

cultures can be associated with different paradigms of international relations. This allows us to

evaluate part of the Flemish news media landscape with regards to its space for media pluralism

about climate change.

In both elite newspapers, the United Nations climate process is found to not only set the agenda

about climate change, as newspaper attention mainly follows these climate summits, but also set

the terms of the debate. Disagreement is limited to the discussions between government leaders

about the specificities regarding the implementation of the (follow-up to) the Kyoto Protocol. This

narrows down the space for democratic debate to disagreements within the current techno-

managerial framework, while debate about this framework and possible alternative sustainable

futures is excluded. Furthermore, the selected elite news media frame these disagreements by

drawing from moralizing and rationalizing discursive strategies.

The first ideological culture is found to be central in the news articles about climate change by the

leading journalists in De Standaard throughout the period of analysis and those by Dirk Bogaert for

De Morgen between 2000 and 2001. It is characterized by a re-occuring delegitimization of (further

international) regulation of greenhouse gases, in favor of (market-driven) technological innovation,

drawing from depoliticizing discursive strategies of (i) economization, (ii) scientization, and (iii),

moralization.

First, a discursive strategy of economization is used from the start to distinguish unaffordable,

costly, extreme, unrealistic, uneconomical demands for more anticipatory regulation from affordable,

cost-effective, economical demands. As a consequence, the current socio-economic model and

specific policy preferences which limit the role of government to create favorable conditions for

(greener) market forces and invest in adaptation to climate change, are naturalized.


https://theieca.org

of 121




Second, this ideological culture also relies on a discursive strategy of scientization to undermine the

capping of greenhouse gas emissions through regulatory measures. It is interesting to see how this

scientization takes on different forms throughout the period of analysis. During the first critical

discourse period, Bogaert for De Morgen represents science as certain and consensual and

legitimizes particular technologies (e.g. nuclear energy) and more market-based approaches (e.g.

carbon trading) through scientific imperatives. Meanwhile, the leading journalist for De Standaard,

Antoon Wouters, deproblematizes climate change as a normal element of a natural evolution by

amplifying scientific uncertainty and disagreement about its anthropogenic causes and

consequences. Starting from technocratic considerations, he legitimizes a policy shift away from

global regulation of greenhouse gases in favor of a focus on technological innovation to mitigate

and adapt to a minimized account of climate change risks. By the second critical discourse period

in 2006-2007, this ideological culture has disappeared from the coverage in De Morgen due to the

departure of Bogaert. The new, leading journalist of De Standaard, Dominique Minten, now

pessimistically represents climate change as a potentially catastrophic problem through a frame of

scientific certainty and consensus, while continuing the newspaper’s optimism about the prospects

of market-driven technological innovation to mitigate the risks of climate change. By COP 18 in

Doha, climate change is fatalistically framed as an already inevitable problem, with coverage in De

Standaard positioning consensual scientists against quarreling politicians, in order to legitimize a

policy shift away from mitigation to adaptation policies as the rational thing to do.

Third, this ideological culture also relies on a discursive strategy of moralization. Essentially, this

means that responsibilities are universalized, i.e. all citizens and all governments are considered to

have an equal and common responsibility ‘to do the right thing’. In De Standaard, this moralization

was especially reflected in the coverage of the climate negotiations for an international regulatory

framework. The ‘failure’ to come to the ‘right’ agreement was represented as the consequence of a

moral fallacy, namely the irresponsible behavior of self-interested politicians. This pessimistic

narrative only featured a homogenized account of government leaders who time after time failed

to come to an agreement to take the ‘right’ decisions. The catastrophic consequences for particular

groups of people were highlighted to stress the immoral conduct of politicians. This moralization of

climate politics served to undermine international regulation of greenhouse gases, in favor of other

policy solutions. In sum, this ideological culture is characterized both by technological optimism

and political defeatism.


https://theieca.org

of 121




In the end, in this ideological culture rational and moral actors and viewpoints are positioned

against irrational and immoral ones, which resulted in a naturalization of neoliberal and

Promethean ideological preferences, which are found to shape the interpretation of climate science

and climate politics during the selected critical discourse moments. Consequently, democratic

debate which allows to critically examine the status quo and think about reform or transformation

towards alternative sustainable futures is precluded in favor of technocratic decision-making and

market forces.

A second ideological culture (central in De Morgen) is also found to consistently rely on

depoliticizing discursive strategies, but this time, in contrast to the previous ideological culture, to

advocate a binding multilateral climate agreement and more ambitious national emission targets. In

this ideological culture, climate change is continuously dramatized as an actual and urgent problem

between 2000 and 2012. The issue is always linked to anthropogenic causes and various extreme

weather events, and climate science is consistently framed as consensual, certain and authoritative.

Based on a presumed scientific and moral consensus, the scientific and moral demands of those

responsible actors (the green heroes backed by science) who are found to contribute to a binding

multilateral agreement, are distinguished from the unscientific and immoral demands of those

irresponsible actors who are found to obstruct such an agreement (mainly the USA, climate skeptics

and fossil fuel lobbies). In doing so, the UNFCCC is naturalized as the inevitable framework for

climate policy. Furthermore, political action in the form of anticipatory regulation of greenhouses

gases in the present through the UNFCCC is also legitimized through a discursive strategy of

economization. In doing so, actions for a global regulation of greenhouse gases through the

UNFCCC are framed as affordable and economically rational, while inaction is delegitimized as

unaffordable and economically irrational. This economization is authorized by referring to various

cost-benefit studies arguing that it is cheaper to mitigate greenhouse gases now than to adapt to

the consequences later.

In these processes, a more ecologist interpretation of techno-environmental progress is naturalized,

one which stresses the limited carrying capacity of the climate and advocates limits on the

exploitation and burning of fossil fuels to harmonize society’s relationship with nature in general,

and the climate in specific. On the socio-economic fault line, a more interventionist logic of

regulation and redistribution is naturalized, calling for more government intervention in the

economy to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (especially those of rich countries) and redistribute


https://theieca.org

of 121




resources through the provision of climate funding by richer, industrialized countries in order to

help poorer, developing countries to mitigate and adapt to the consequences of climate change.

This ideological culture calls for government intervention to “green” the status quo, however,

without touching the fundamentalism of capitalism.

A third ideological culture, central in DeWereldMorgen, is found to rely mainly on politicizing

discursive strategies. Rather than naturalizing one course of action out of moral, technocratic or

market-oriented considerations, climate change is framed as an issue involving key political choices

between alternative sustainable futures, using three re-occurring politicizing discursive strategies.

First, the main object of discourse is not an objectified and externalized climate change, but the

role of the market whose role in causing climate change and shaping climate policy is consistently

problematized. Second, inequalities, assumptions, values and economic interests underlying the

positions in the climate change debate are revealed, framing particular decisions and positions as

an ideological choice rather than an inevitable, necessary evolution. Third, representatives from

global civil society, grass roots activists, ordinary citizens and governments of developing countries

are differentiated from and positioned against representatives of Western governments and specific

economic interests, relating these to alternative policy choices and world views.

In this process, similar ideological standpoints on the fault lines can be found as in De Morgen.

However, when we compare the positions regarding the socio-economic fault line of De Morgen to

those of DeWereldMorgen then a fundamental difference regarding the scope of the socio-

economic fault line can be observed. De Morgen endorses further government intervention to

regulate greenhouse gases at the national and global level, but does this through depoliticizing

discursive strategies of moralization, scientization and economization. It presents (a follow-up to)

the Kyoto Protocol as the only rational and moral option to prevent a global climate catastrophe,

and limits its focus to the delegitimization of the wrong actors, often framed as ‘climate skeptics’,

who impede effective action against climate change. This suggests that these specific immoral and

irrational actors are the only obstacles to solve climate change. Meanwhile, the structuring influence

of current techno-environmental systems of agriculture, transport, energy, etc., and the existing

politico-economic model and its market logic, on climate policy and the rise of greenhouse gas

emissions remain unquestioned and unchallenged. As a consequence, one specific solution is

naturalized: a global agreement to regulate greenhouse gases and redistribute money from the

developed to the developing world, within the context of the current globalizing market economy,


https://theieca.org

of 121




while other futures are delegitimized or ignored. Alternatively, DeWereldMorgen gives access to

voices who on the hand challenge the policy choices at stake during the climate negotiations and

link them to market logic, private interests and the existing politico-economic model of neoliberal

capitalism, and on other hand explicitly promote increased public control over the economy to

regulate greenhouse gas emissions and redistribute wealth. By focusing both directly on the

existing political-economic model and its policy principles, and by giving access to alternative

policies which break with the current framework, DeWereldMorgen’s discursive space enables an

exercise in opposite political-economic models, and by doing so functions as an arena for a

democratic debate alternative futures. This suggests a more restricted scope of the socio-economic

fault line in De Morgen compared to DeWereldMorgen.

Furthermore, we find that these three ideological cultures can be associated with different

paradigms of international relations (for more information on the paradigms of international

relations see p.70). The following three re-occurring patterns in the coverage of the international

climate negotiations show how the first ideological culture, central in De Standaard, coincides with

the neorealist paradigm of international relations. First, coverage was continuously skeptic about

the likelihood of any substantive international cooperation between nation-states through the

UNFCCC, unless all major powers and emitters, such as the US or China, would participate. Second,

government leaders, personifying nation-states, were seen as the leading actors who are chiefly

motivated by selfishness and greed to increase their relative power capabilities in international

politics. Therefore, further national regulation of greenhouse gases without the participation of

China, India or the USA, is assumed to be irrational as this would hamper a nation’s power

capabilities in terms of national competitiveness.

The second ideological culture, central in De Morgen, coincides with a liberal paradigm of

international relations, which emphasizes the mutual dependence of nation-states in the face of

global problems, the potential and added value of cooperation, and the importance of international

institutions and treaties in this regard. This is illustrated by how this ideological culture is found to

(i) support every step towards a binding, multilateral agreement, (ii) evaluate actors on the extent

to which they contribute to (a follow-up to) the Kyoto Protocol, (iii) advocate “more ambition” for a

binding, climate agreement by national governments, and (iv), give significant space to

nongovernmental and transnational organizations in addition to nation-states in this process.


https://theieca.org

of 121




Lastly, the following four patterns show how the ideological culture, central in DeWereldMorgen,

coincides with the critical paradigm of international relations, which criticizes the realist and liberal

paradigms for accepting and naturalizing the parameters and inequalities of the existing politico-

economic system and alternatively argues for a more egalitarian world system and international

relations. This is illustrated by how this ideological culture is found to (i) highlight the inequalities

between the poor peripheries of the world and the wealthy, high-carbon centers, which climate

change exacerbates, (ii) frame the climate change debate as a conflict between social movements

on the one hand, including voices from the periphery of the world system, and the economic

interests of rich, western countries and fossil fuel industries on the other, (iii) stress the structuring

power of capitalism in shaping international climate politics, and (iv), state that catastrophic climate

change can only be avoided within a more equitable socio-economic system.

Furthermore, both newspapers are found to frame citizens mainly as an anonymous collective,

which either supports or rejects ‘action’ on climate change. Other articles represent the public as

passive and reactive victims of the consequences of climate change. Representations of active

citizens, who are given framing power to construct and deconstruct particular futures, are almost

non-existent, with coverage limiting the agency of citizens to act as consumers and enact climate-

friendly lifestyle choices. Such framings of the public re-occur frequently in mainstream media(ted)

and government discourses (Carvalho, 2010). Only in the third ideological culture, central in

DeWereldMorgen, citizens are also framed as active, democratic participants who can take part in

political grass-roots action to support and contest particular futures.

To sum up, this analysis has identified three ideological cultures, which can be differentiated not

only in terms of ideological standpoints and underlying assumptions about the nature of

international relations, but also on the extent to which they either close or open spaces for

democratic, i.e. ideologically-pluralist, debate about climate change, drawing from de/politicizing

discursive strategies. The ideological culture of De Standaard is driven by a belief in techno-

scientific progress, market forces and (neo)realist assumptions of international relations, and relies

on depoliticizing discursive strategies to naturalize a deregulatory approach to climate change. A

second ideological culture, central in De Morgen, relies on depoliticizing strategies to naturalize a

more interventionist approach, namely a binding multilateral framework, key to a liberal paradigm

of international relations, to regulate greenhouses gases and provide climate funding for

developing countries in order to steer society into a renewable future within the carrying capacity


https://theieca.org

of 121




of the earth. A third ideological culture is central in DeWereldMorgen, which starts from a critical

paradigm of international relations relating the issues of climate change to the values and interests

central to the existing neoliberal socio-economic model, and resultantly, makes these subject of

public debate by giving access to voices who advocate more public control over the economy and

a logic of regulation and redistribution.

In general, the present study supports previous findings that ideological standpoints about society’s

relationship with nature and the role of government in the economy are internalized in climate

change coverage through journalists’ interpretation of the facts, selection of actors and evaluation

of associated policy goals (Carvalho, 2007:237; Doyle, 2011: 120-122). The identified ideological

cultures bear some similarities to those found in British news media (Carvalho, 2007:239). The

ideological culture of De Standaard bears many similarities with that of The Times in the UK, which

also starts from a neoliberal and Promethean ideological preferences. During the first critical

discourse period, news coverage in De Morgen can be said to be comparable to that of The

Independent, since it also relies on different journalists who start from different ideological

preferences. During the second and third period, it seems to align more with that of The Guardian.

Especially DeWereldMorgen appears to be similar to the ecologist and social-democratic ideology

of The Guardian. Similarly, the ideological standpoints of De Standaard, De Morgen and

DeWereldMorgen bear many similarities to the three kinds of influential public intellectuals Nisbet

(2014) has recently identified in the Anglo-Saxon world. He found these to differ in their problem

framings of climate change and outlooks on nature, technology, climate policy and social change.

The first ideological culture bears similarities with ‘the ecomodernists’ who argue for investments in

energy innovation and societal resilience. The second ideological culture, central in De Morgen, is

similar to the preferences of ‘the smart growth reformers’ who call for a binding, international

agreement to steer the market in a sustainable direction through price incentives. The third

ideological culture is similar to the preferences of the ‘ecological activists’ who problematize

capitalism and call for grassroots action to come to a new localized, renewable economic system

under public control. The findings about DeWereldMorgen also contrast with previous research on

the representation of climate change in alternative media which argued that such media hardly

provide alternative articulations (Kenix, 2008; Brand & Brunnengräber, 2012).

These findings also tell us something about the state of media pluralism in a selection of Flanders’

news media. From an agonistic-pluralist perspective, media pluralism requires the existence of a


https://theieca.org

of 121




multiplicity spaces of genuine ideological contestation in which public and essentially political

debates are stimulated. If we look at external ideological pluralism, or put differently, ideological

pluralism in the media landscape as a whole, then the analysis shows that the included media

outlets start from different positions on the fault lines. Ideological differences thus (still) exist

between Flanders’ elite newspapers, but also between traditional, mainstream media and new,

alternative media. We conclude that there is space for (albeit limited) ideological pluralism in the

Flemish media landscape. However, one could also argue that, apart from the opinion pages and

columns, this ideological pluralism is not so much found within the news outlets (i.e. internal

pluralism), save for De Morgen in the first critical discourse period. In other words, readers can only

find different perspectives in the opinionating section, or if they read several news outlets.

Simultaneously (and somewhat paradoxically), it could also be argued that DeWereldMorgen, the

news outlet which relies on politicizing discursive strategies and which is most explicit about its

own preferences, provides the largest scope for ideologically-pluralist debate. As argued before, it

is the only outlet which frames climate change as an issue which features key disagreements over

political choices leading to alternative sustainable futures, which are also recognized as such.

Although it clearly awards framing power to one side of the debate and these voices challenge

rather than merely reveal particular values and interests, it is the only outlet which uses the climate

change issue as inspiration for debate about alternative sustainable futures. By doing so,

DeWereldMorgen broadens the scope of discursive interpretations and democratic debate in the

Flemish media landscape. However, as argued before, the real influence of this news outlet in the

social debate remains very limited in comparison to commercial elite newspapers such as De

Morgen and De Standaard, due to its relatively low reach and news status. In the end, we can

therefore argue that this analysis reveals a complex and nuanced picture regarding media pluralism.

There are two main limitations to this study. First, DeWereldMorgen was studied during only one

critical discourse moment because it was founded only in 2010, which limits the comparability of

the findings and the ability to make generalizable statements. Second, coverage in

DeWereldMorgen relied heavily on articles from the International Press Service (IPS) and on op-eds,

rather than a specialized journalist who writes about climate change on a regular basis for the news

outlet, as in De Morgen and De Standaard. Meanwhile, our analysis revealed the importance of the

change in leading journalist in De Morgen and De Standaard between the different critical

discourse moments. This raises questions about the historic-diachronic analysis of news coverage,

i.e. to what extent can we compare news articles about the same topic over time when they are


https://theieca.org

of 121




written by different journalists? This is an issue that all longitudinal research about media

discourses faces, but our qualitative method, in contrast to a quantitative content analysis, allows to

reveal and be open about this. The notion of ideological culture also leaves room for some

pluralism and diversity and understands ideology as something dynamic and context-dependent

rather than fixed and uniform (Carvalho 2007:239-240). Our analysis shows that, while the

respective journalists may change, the central ideological cultures of De Morgen and De Standaard

remain stable. Furthermore, the ideological cultures of the three news outlets are found to be

similar to those identified in the case of genetically modified food (Maeseele, 2013b; Maeseele et al,

2014) and Belgium’s 2010-2011 government formation (Raeijmaekers & Maeseele, 2014).

These findings also bring forward important questions about how contextual factors shape

ideological cultures. Many plausible explanations force themselves upon us. Due to the shift from

pillarized to commercial ownership structures, Flemish media have become much more implicit

about their ideological standpoints, especially in comparison to their British counterparts which are

quite explicit about their (party-)political stances. However, this analysis shows that a more neutral

tone does not render ideology obsolete, but rather conceals it. De Standaard and De Morgen still

start from different ideological standpoints, at least, in their coverage on climate change. Most

journalists currently writing for these newspapers have never experienced the more pillarized times,

so it is unlikely that this is still a remnant of the pillarized past. It is possible that the differences in

communities of ideas, values and preferences inside media organizations and in their particular

audiences are now no longer motivated by the promotion of a particular ideology or pillar, but

rather by strategic, commercial motives. This entails that each news outlet targets specific segments

of the market. For instance, climate change is one of the issues about which De Morgen wants to

make a difference. This is illustrated by the much higher coverage of climate change by De Morgen

compared to De Standaard in recent years and by its annual special climate change editions.

Furthermore, in a recent interview299 about the new course of the newspaper, the editors in chief of

De Morgen highlighted “ecological sustainability” as a core value of the newspaper and climate

change as a crucial theme on which the newspaper wants to be the leading voice in Flanders.

Another possible explanation for their ideological standpoints lays in the elite newspapers’ reliance

on advertising from high-carbon industries like the energy, tourism, or transportation sector, or the

299 Eeckhout, We have to take more pride in the fact that we are making De Morgen, 12/12/2012


https://theieca.org

of 121




banks that finance them. Therefore, it is possible that journalists and editors (un)consciously prefer

‘neutral’, descriptive news coverage, reproducing calls for unspecified ‘climate action’ in rationalist

or moralist terms, about which almost anyone can agree and which do not explicitly challenge the

interests of their advertisers directly. Such a less confrontational stance also allows to decrease the

cognitive dissonance for journalists and readers between on the one hand the news outlets’

warnings about the catastrophic consequences of climate change and calls for action, and on the

other hand their promotion of high-carbon lifestyles through advertisements, news articles, lifestyle

supplements and marketing strategies (e.g. these newspapers have given away free airplane tickets

or energy-consuming tablets to potential subscribers). DeWereldMorgen does not accept funding

from such sources and therefore does not need to adapt or change its stance in particular contexts.

These two explanations focus on the political economy of news. However, journalists are not simply

pawns in the game of an all-encompassing economic structure. Our analysis reveals that journalists

have a certain degree of autonomy and that there is a certain amount of pluralism within each

news outlet. Especially in De Morgen, we have found diversity depending on the speaker or

journalist. Some articles were more similar to the ideological culture of De Standaard (e.g. the

articles by Dirk Bogaert) and others were more similar to that of DeWereldMorgen. This could

suggest that an ideological culture is not so much shaped by the general editorial stance of a news

outlet, but rather by the preferences of individual journalists. However, this seems to be unlikely

since we found the ideological cultures to be quite stable over the period of analysis.

A fourth possible explanation could be found in existing differences between mainstream, elite

outlets and alternative news media with regards to journalistic practices and routines. Journalists of

elite newspapers attempt to provide ‘objective’ reporting through an ‘impartial’ or ‘neutral’

approach to journalism, only allowing for ‘facts’ and ‘rational’ arguments from official sources

(governments, international institutions, renowned research centers and ‘official NGO’). This then

leads to the reproduction of the depoliticized, hegemonic preferences of these powerful sources.

Previous analyses have argued that these have generally subscribed to ‘the green economy’ or

‘green growth’ project (Kenis & Lievens, 2012). Meanwhile, DeWereldMorgen specifically aims to

include views that are neglected by commercial, mainstream media, e.g. voices from the global

South or representatives from radical environmental movements who challenge the green economy

project.


https://theieca.org

of 121




In the end, this analysis provides a valuable understanding of ideological cultures and the

depoliticization of climate change. It shows how assessments of climate science and climate politics

can change over time, while the underlying ideological preferences remain stable. Furthermore, it

finds that the same discursive strategies are used to legitimize different ideological standpoints and

are thus not limited to specific subjects or standpoints. This presents a more nuanced, dynamic and

diverse portrayal of the depoliticization of climate change, which complements the previous

literature about this subject.


https://theieca.org

of 121




References

Boykoff, M. (2011). Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media reporting on climate

change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brand, A., & Brunnengräber, A. (2012). Conflictive Knowledge Constructions on Climate Change

through Mainstream and Alternative Media? Transcience, 3(1), 7-24.

Carragee, K.M., Roefs, W. (2004). The Neglect of Power in Recent Framing Research. Journal of

Communication, 54 (2),214-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02625.x

Carvalho , A., & Burgess, J. (2005). Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in U.K. Broadsheet

Newspapers, 1985-2003. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1457-1469. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-

6924.2005.00692.x

Carvalho, A. (2005). Representing the politics of the greenhouse effect. Critical Discourse Studies,

2(1), 1-29. doi:10.1080/17405900500052143

Carvalho, A. (2007). Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading

news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 223–243.

doi:10.1177/0963662506066775

Carvalho, A. (2008). Media(ted) discourse and society: Rethinking the framework of critical discourse

analysis. Journalism Studies, 9(2), 161–177. doi:10.1080/14616700701848162

Carvalho, A. (2010). Media(ted)discourses and climate change: a focus on political subjectivity and

(dis)engagement. Wires Climate Change, 1(2), 172-179. doi: 10.1002/wcc.13

Cottle S. (1998). Ulrich Beck, ‘risk society’ and the media: a catastrophic view? European Journal of

Communication,13(1),5-32. doi: 10.1177/0267323198013001001

Cottle, S. (2006). Mediatized Conflicts. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Dirikx, A. & Gelders, D. (2010). Ideologies overruled? An explorative study of the link between

ideology and climate change reporting in Dutch and French newspapers. Environmental

Communication, 4(4), 190–205. doi:10.1080/17524031003760838

Doyle, G. (2002). Media ownership: the economics and politics of convergence and concentration in

the UK and European media. London: Sage Publications.


https://theieca.org

of 121




Doyle, J. (2011). Mediating climate change. Farnham &Burlington: Ashgate.

Eide, E., Kunelius, R. & Kumpu, V. (2010). Global climate. Local journalisms. A transnational study of

how media make sense of climate summits. Oslo: Projektverlag.

Eide, E. & Ytterstad, A. (2011). The tainted hero: Frames of domestication in Norwegian press

representation of the Bali climate summit. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(1),

50–74. doi:10.1177/1940161210383420

Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.

Foust, C.R., O’Shannon Murphy, W. (2011). Revealing and Reframing ApocalypticTragedy in Global

Warming Discourse. Environmental Communication, 3(2), 151-67.doi:

10.1080/17524030902916624

Goovaerts, A. (2014). Wat u van ons mag verwachten? Veel nieuws, maar niet te veel nieuwe

dingen. De Morgen, 05/11/2014, Retrieved from http://www.demorgen.be/tvmedia/wat-u-

van-ons-mag-verwachten-veel-nieuws-maar-niet-te-veel-nieuwe-dingen-a2112080/

(accessed 02/01/2015).

Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media.

New York: Pantheon

Howarth, D. (2000). Discourse. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Hulme, M. (2007, March 14). The Appliance of Science, The Guardian. Retrieved from:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

(accessed 27/12/2014).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014). Climate Change 2014. Synthesis Report.

Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to Fifth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate Change 2007. Synthesis Report.

Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.

Jørgensen, M. & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory & Method. London: Sage.


https://theieca.org

http://www.demorgen.be/tvmedia/wat-u-van-ons-mag-verwachten-veel-nieuws-maar-niet-te-veel-nieuwe-dingen-a2112080/

http://www.demorgen.be/tvmedia/wat-u-van-ons-mag-verwachten-veel-nieuws-maar-niet-te-veel-nieuwe-dingen-a2112080/

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

of 121




Kenis, A., Lievens, M. (2012). De mythe van de groene economie. Valstrik, verzet en alternatieven.

Antwerpen & Utrecht: EPO & Jan van Arkel

Kenis, A. & Lievens, M. (2014). Searching for 'the political' in environmental politics. Environmental

Politics, 23 (4), 531-548.doi: 10.1080/09644016.2013.870067

Kenix, L.J. (2008). Framing Science: Climate Change in the Mainstream and Alternative News of New

Zealand. Political Science, 60(1), 117‐132. doi: 10.1177/003231870806000110

Lester, L. (2010). Media & Environment. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Maeseele, P, Schuurman, D. (2008). Biotechnology and the Popular press in Northern Belgium.A

Case Study of Hegemonic Media Discourses and the Interpretive Struggle. Science

Communication, 29(4), 435-71. doi: 10.1177/1075547008316221

Maeseele, P. (2011). On news media and democratic debate: Framing agricultural biotechnology in

Northern Belgium. International Communication Gazette, 73(1-2), 83–105.

doi:10.1177/1748048510386743

Maeseele, P. (2013b, Online first). Risk conflicts, critical discourse analysis, and media discourses on

GM crops and food. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism. doi:

10.1177/1464884913511568

Maeseele P., Raeijmaekers D., Van der Steen L., Reul R. & Paulussen S. (2014). Pluralisme en

Vlaamse nieuwsmedia: de (hete) aardappel van de toekomst. Tijdschrift voor

Communicatiewetenschap, 42 (4).

McComas, K. & Shanahan, J. (1999). Telling Stories About Global Climate Change: Measuring the

Impact of Narratives on Issue Cycles. Communication Research, 26(1), 30-57. doi:

10.1177/009365099026001003

Nisbet, M., Lewenstein, B. (2002). Biotechnology and the American Media. The Policy Process and

the Elite Press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23 (4): 359-91.

doi:10.1177/107554700202300401

Nisbet, M. (2014a). Beyond Polarization: The Limits to Technocratic and Activist Approaches to

Climate Politics. In M. Boykoff & D. Crow (Eds.), Culture, Politics & Climate Change: How

Information Shapes our Common Future (pp. 180-186). New York: Routledge.


https://theieca.org

of 121




Olausson, U. (2009). Global warming-global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and

scientific certainty. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 421–436.

doi:10.1177/0963662507081242.

Raeijmaekers D. & Maeseele P. (2014) Ideologisch pluralisme in Vlaamse nieuwsmedia: de Belgische

regeringsformatie 2010-2011. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap. 42(2): 145-164. doi:

10.5553/TCW/138469302014042002004

Salomon, M. (1992). The Heidelberg Appeal to heads of states and governments. Retrieved from:

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jmc24e00 (accessed 05/01/2015).

Sandbag (2011, July 27). What is the Clean Development Mechanism, The Guardian. Retrieved from:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/26/clean-development-mechanism

(accessed 05/01/2015).

Sartor, T. & Page, D. (2009, December 9). Global warming generates little heat in the media, Pew

Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. Retrieved from:

http://www.journalism.org/numbers/global-warming-generates-little-heat-media/ (accessed

05/01/2015).

Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the specter of climate

change. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2-3), 213–232. doi:10.1177/0263276409358728

Takahashi, B. & Meisner, M. (2013). Climate change in Peruvian newspapers: The role of foreign

voices in a context of vulnerability. Public Understanding of Science, 22(4), 427-444. doi:

10.1177/0963662511431204

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992, May 9). Full Convention Text,

UNFCCC. Retrieved from:

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1349.php (accessed

05/01/2015)

van Dijk, T. (1988). News as Discourse. Hillsdale: Laurence Erlbaum.

Wodak, R. (1999). Critical Discourse Analysis at the End of the 20th Century, Research on Language

and Social Interaction, 32(1-2), 185-193. doi: 10.1080/08351813.1999.9683622


https://theieca.org

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jmc24e00

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/26/clean-development-mechanism

http://www.journalism.org/numbers/global-warming-generates-little-heat-media/

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1349.php

of 121





https://theieca.org

Communicating Climate Change Democratically Across the ... · Communicating Climate Change...

Documents

Transcript of Communicating Climate Change Democratically Across the ... · Communicating Climate Change...