IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v38y2021i5p570-595.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy or scientific messaging? Strategic framing in a case of subnational climate change conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Heather W. Cann

Abstract

Climate change and the implementation of climate‐energy policies remains highly contentious in the United States. Prior research makes clear that the way polices are “framed” powerfully shapes how they are conceptualized. This article explores framing dynamics within a 2015–2016 case of subfederal climate‐energy policy conflict in the state of Illinois, which culminated with the passage of the Future Energy Jobs Act: legislation that contained significant environmental initiatives. I investigate this episode through a process tracing case study, incorporating qualitative content analysis and semi‐structured interviews with stakeholders. Results suggest that stakeholders strategically framed their policies in terms of economic benefits, and other aspects of a policy's design, as opposed to focusing on climate change or climate science. In this way, Illinois was able to pass a comprehensive climate‐energy policy with bipartisan support—an outcome infrequently seen in other states around the country. 气候变化和气候‐能源政策的执行一直是美国的高度热点议题。以往研究主张，政策的“建构”方式能强烈影响其如何被概念化。本文探究了2015‐2016年伊利诺伊州气候‐能源政策冲突的建构动态，该冲突在《未来能源工作法案》（Future Energy Jobs Act）通过时最为激烈：该法案涉及大量能源倡议计划。通过一项过程追踪案例研究，包括定性内容分析和针对利益攸关方的半结构化访谈，我对该案例加以分析。分析结果暗示，利益攸关方从策略上对各自政策的经济利益方面以及政策设计的其他方面加以建构，而不是聚焦于气候变化或气候科学。如此一来，伊利诺伊州能够在两党支持下通过一项全面的气候‐能源政策—这一结果在其他州是不常见的。 El cambio climático y la implementación de políticas climáticas y energéticas sigue siendo muy polémico en los Estados Unidos. Investigaciones anteriores dejan en claro que la forma en que se "enmarcan" las políticas da forma poderosamente a cómo se conceptualizan. Este artículo explora la dinámica de encuadre dentro de un caso de conflicto subfederal de política energética y climática en el estado de Illinois entre 2015 y 2016, que culminó con la aprobación de la Ley de Empleos de Energía Futura: legislación que contenía iniciativas ambientales importantes. Investigo este episodio a través de un estudio de caso de seguimiento de procesos, que incorpora análisis de contenido cualitativo y entrevistas semiestructuradas con las partes interesadas. Los resultados sugieren que las partes interesadas enmarcaron estratégicamente sus políticas en términos de beneficios económicos y otros aspectos del diseño de una política, en lugar de centrarse en el cambio climático o la ciencia climática. De esta manera, Illinois pudo aprobar una política integral de clima y energía con apoyo bipartidista, un resultado que se ve con poca frecuencia en otros estados del país.

Suggested Citation

  • Heather W. Cann, 2021. "Policy or scientific messaging? Strategic framing in a case of subnational climate change conflict," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 570-595, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:38:y:2021:i:5:p:570-595
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12438
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12438?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stokes, Leah C., 2013. "The politics of renewable energy policies: The case of feed-in tariffs in Ontario, Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 490-500.
    2. Leah C. Stokes & Christopher Warshaw, 2017. "Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(8), pages 1-6, August.
    3. Janel Jett & Leigh Raymond, 2021. "Issue Framing and U.S. State Energy and Climate Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 278-299, May.
    4. Stephan Lewandowsky & Gilles E. Gignac & Samuel Vaughan, 2013. "The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 399-404, April.
    5. Bessette, Douglas L. & Arvai, Joseph L., 2018. "Engaging attribute tradeoffs in clean energy portfolio development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 221-229.
    6. Tatyana Deryugina & Olga Shurchkov, 2016. "The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.
    7. Kathryn Harrison, 2012. "A Tale of Two Taxes: The Fate of Environmental Tax Reform in Canada," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(3), pages 383-407, May.
    8. Barry G. Rabe & Sarah B. Mills, 2017. "State energy policy in the Trump Era: insights from public opinion," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(4), pages 535-539, December.
    9. Sander L van der Linden & Anthony A Leiserowitz & Geoffrey D Feinberg & Edward W Maibach, 2015. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8, February.
    10. Coley, Jonathan S. & Hess, David J., 2012. "Green energy laws and Republican legislators in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 576-583.
    11. Teresa Myers & Matthew Nisbet & Edward Maibach & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2012. "A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 1105-1112, August.
    12. Torbjørg Jevnaker & Jørgen Wettestad, 2017. "Ratcheting Up Carbon Trade: The Politics of Reforming EU Emissions Trading," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(2), pages 105-124, May.
    13. Barry G. Rabe & Christopher P. Borick, 2012. "Carbon Taxation and Policy Labeling: Experience from American States and Canadian Provinces," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(3), pages 358-382, May.
    14. Christopher P. Borick & Barry G. Rabe, 2010. "A Reason to Believe: Examining the Factors that Determine Individual Views on Global Warming," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(3), pages 777-800, September.
    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. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Ilana Schröder & Colette S. Vogeler, 2021. "Decarbonization and climate change," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(6), pages 754-756, November.
    2. Temirlan T. Moldogaziev & Rachel M. Krause & Gwen Arnold & Le Ahn Nguyen Long & Tatyana Ruseva & Chris Silvia & Christopher Witko, 2023. "Support for the environment post‐transition? Material concerns and policy tradeoffs," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(2), pages 186-206, March.

    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. Kayla M. Young & Kayla Gurganus & Leigh Raymond, 2022. "Framing market‐based versus regulatory climate policies: A comparative analysis," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 798-819, November.
    2. Jason Gainous & Rodger A. Payne & Melissa K. Merry, 2021. "Do Source cues or frames matter? Convincing the public about the veracity of climate science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1894-1906, July.
    3. Janel Jett & Leigh Raymond, 2021. "Issue Framing and U.S. State Energy and Climate Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 278-299, May.
    4. Raymond, Leigh, 2019. "Policy perspective:Building political support for carbon pricing—Lessons from cap-and-trade policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Joshua A. Basseches & Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo & Maxwell T. Boykoff & Trevor Culhane & Galen Hall & Noel Healy & David J. Hess & David Hsu & Rachel M. Krause & Harland Prechel & J. Timmons Roberts & J, 2022. "Climate policy conflict in the U.S. states: a critical review and way forward," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-24, February.
    6. Aaron Drummond & Lauren C. Hall & James D. Sauer & Matthew A. Palmer, 2018. "Is public awareness and perceived threat of climate change associated with governmental mitigation targets?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(2), pages 159-171, July.
    7. Tatyana Deryugina & Olga Shurchkov, 2016. "The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.
    8. Beck, Marisa & Rivers, Nicholas & Wigle, Randall & Yonezawa, Hidemichi, 2015. "Carbon tax and revenue recycling: Impacts on households in British Columbia," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 40-69.
    9. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    10. Ann Garth & Timmons Roberts, 2022. "Economic framing dominates climate policy reporting: a fifty-state analysis," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(3), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Sacha Altay & Marlène Schwartz & Anne-Sophie Hacquin & Aurélien Allard & Stefaan Blancke & Hugo Mercier, 2022. "Scaling up interactive argumentation by providing counterarguments with a chatbot," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(4), pages 579-592, April.
    12. Salil Benegal & Jon Green, 2024. "Cost sensitivity, partisan cues, and support for the Green New Deal," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 14(4), pages 763-775, December.
    13. Rosalind Pidcock & Kate Heath & Lydia Messling & Susie Wang & Anna Pirani & Sarah Connors & Adam Corner & Christopher Shaw & Melissa Gomis, 2021. "Evaluating effective public engagement: local stories from a global network of IPCC scientists," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 1-22, October.
    14. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2016. "Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, November.
    15. Le Yaouanq, Yves, 2018. "A Model of Ideological Thinking," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 85, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    16. Temirlan T. Moldogaziev & Rachel M. Krause & Gwen Arnold & Le Ahn Nguyen Long & Tatyana Ruseva & Chris Silvia & Christopher Witko, 2023. "Support for the environment post‐transition? Material concerns and policy tradeoffs," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(2), pages 186-206, March.
    17. David J. Gordon, 2015. "An Uneasy Equilibrium: The Coordination of Climate Governance in Federated Systems," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(2), pages 121-141, May.
    18. Toby Bolsen & Justin Kingsland & Risa Palm, 2018. "The impact of frames highlighting coastal flooding in the USA on climate change beliefs," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 359-368, March.
    19. Carl, Jeremy & Fedor, David, 2016. "Tracking global carbon revenues: A survey of carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade in the real world," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 50-77.
    20. repec:plo:pone00:0200295 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Paul H. Thibodeau & Cynthia McPherson Frantz & Matias Berretta, 2017. "The earth is our home: systemic metaphors to redefine our relationship with nature," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 287-300, 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:bla:revpol:v:38:y:2021:i:5:p:570-595. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    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.