IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v133y2015i3p535-549.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Constructions of climate justice in German, Indian and US media

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Schmidt
  • Mike Schäfer

Abstract

Collective action on climate change is easier when the involved actors share an understanding of climate justice, that is, if they agree on the morally right way of dealing with the issue. Such understandings have been shown to vary, however. Based on German, Indian and US media coverage, we develop a typology of different constructions of climate justice. The five patterns we identify differ considerably across several dimensions, including the valuation of certain goods and rights, the definition of moral in-groups, and the basic principles for climate governance. These patterns can be found in all three countries, but their importance varies between them. The US debate is especially conflictive, with some actors emphasizing freedom from state intervention and others demanding provident political action. Although the positions in Germany and India are less divergent, there is also no agreement on how to address climate change in a just way in these countries. In particular, the conflict between global and intergenerational justice demands – reflecting the nature of climate change – and the enduring relevance of traditional conceptions focusing on contemporary and national communities are intricate. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Schmidt & Mike Schäfer, 2015. "Constructions of climate justice in German, Indian and US media," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 133(3), pages 535-549, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:133:y:2015:i:3:p:535-549
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-015-1488-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10584-015-1488-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-015-1488-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Terry Townshend & Sam Fankhauser & Adam Matthews & Clément Feger & Jin Liu & Thais Narciso, 2011. "GLOBE climate legislation study," Working Papers hal-01930971, HAL.
    2. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    3. Andreas Lange, 2006. "The Impact of Equity-preferences on the Stability of International Environmental Agreements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(2), pages 247-267, June.
    4. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2010. "What Drives Media Slant? Evidence From U.S. Daily Newspapers," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 35-71, January.
    5. Terry Townshend & Sam Fankhauser & Rafael Aybar & Murray Collins & Tucker Landesman & Michal Nachmany & Carolina Pavese, 2013. "How national legislation can help to solve climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(5), pages 430-432, May.
    6. Sjur Kasa & Anne Gullberg & Gørild Heggelund, 2008. "The Group of 77 in the international climate negotiations: recent developments and future directions," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 113-127, June.
    7. Jagadish Thaker & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2014. "Shifting discourses of climate change in India," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(2), pages 107-119, March.
    8. Astrid Dannenberg & Bodo Sturm & Carsten Vogt, 2010. "Do Equity Preferences Matter for Climate Negotiators? An Experimental Investigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 91-109, September.
    9. Sonja Klinsky & Hadi Dowlatabadi, 2009. "Conceptualizations of justice in climate policy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 88-108, January.
    10. Robert Gampfer, 2014. "Do individuals care about fairness in burden sharing for climate change mitigation? Evidence from a lab experiment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 65-77, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dominic Roser & Christian Huggel & Markus Ohndorf & Ivo Wallimann-Helmer, 2015. "Advancing the interdisciplinary dialogue on climate justice," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 133(3), pages 349-359, December.
    2. Swarnalakshmi Umamaheswaran & Vandita Dar & Jagadish Thaker, 2022. "The Evolution of Climate Change Reporting in Business Media: Longitudinal Analysis of a Business Newspaper," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-21, November.
    3. Liyuan Liu & Jing Zhu & Yibin Zhang & Xiding Chen, 2020. "An Optimal Pollution Control Model for Environmental Protection Cooperation between Developing and Developed Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-20, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lea S. Svenningsen, 2019. "Social preferences for distributive outcomes of climate policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 157(2), pages 319-336, November.
    2. Schleich, Joachim & Dütschke, Elisabeth & Schwirplies, Claudia & Ziegler, Andreas, 2014. "Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: Empirical insights from China, Germany and the US," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S2/2014, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    3. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas, 2013. "A fair share: Burden-sharing preferences in the United States and China," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-17.
    4. Joachim Schleich & Elisabeth Dütschke & Claudia Schwirplies & Andreas Ziegler, 2016. "Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: an empirical analysis," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 50-67, January.
    5. Buchholz, Wolfgang & Peters, Wolfgang & Ufert, Aneta, 2018. "International environmental agreements on climate protection: A Binary choice model with heterogeneous agents," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 191-205.
    6. Lea Skræp Svenningsen, 2017. "Distributive outcomes matter: Measuring social preferences for climate policy," IFRO Working Paper 2017/11, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    7. Rogna, Marco & Vogt, Carla, 2020. "Coalition formation with optimal transfers when players are heterogeneous and inequality averse," Ruhr Economic Papers 865, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    8. Le Yaouanq, Yves, 2018. "A Model of Ideological Thinking," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 85, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    9. Jon Hovi & Hugh Ward & Frank Grundig, 2015. "Hope or Despair? Formal Models of Climate Cooperation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(4), pages 665-688, December.
    10. Benjamin T. Wood & Lindsay C. Stringer & Andrew J. Dougill & Claire H. Quinn, 2018. "Socially Just Triple-Wins? A Framework for Evaluating the Social Justice Implications of Climate Compatible Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, January.
    11. Vogt, Carsten & Sturm, Bodo, 2011. "Implications of inequality aversion for international climate policy," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-050, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    12. Antony Millner & Hélène Ollivier, 2016. "Beliefs, Politics, and Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 226-244.
    13. Faia, Ester & Pezone, Vincenzo & Zafar, Basit, 2021. "Biases in Information Selection and Processing: Survey Evidence from the Pandemic," CEPR Discussion Papers 15774, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Marco Vincenzi, 2023. "Mapping the empirical relationship between environmental performance and social preferences: Evidence from macro data," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2023(1), pages 85-102.
    15. Nyborg, Karine, 2018. "Reciprocal climate negotiators," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 707-725.
    16. Le Yaouanq, Yves, 2023. "A model of voting with motivated beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 394-408.
    17. Elisabeth Gsottbauer & Jeroen den Bergh, 2013. "Bounded rationality and social interaction in negotiating a climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 225-249, September.
    18. Joachim Schleich & Claudia Schwirplies & Andreas Ziegler, 2014. "Private provision of public goods: Do individual climate protection efforts depend on perceptions of climate policy?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201453, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    19. Bernhardt, Lea & Dewenter, Ralf & Thomas, Tobias, 2020. "Measuring partisan media bias in US Newscasts from 2001-2012," Working Paper 183/2020, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, revised 15 Nov 2022.
    20. Mueller, Hannes & Rauh, Christopher, 2018. "Reading Between the Lines: Prediction of Political Violence Using Newspaper Text," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 358-375, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:133:y:2015:i:3:p:535-549. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.