IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/wirecc/v7y2016i4p478-485.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The politicization of climate change: problem or solution?

Author

Listed:
  • Yves Pepermans
  • Pieter Maeseele

Abstract

In the academic literature, two perspectives can be distinguished regarding the climate debate. The dominant consensus‐building perspective problematizes the politicization of climate change as an important barrier to climate action and resultantly sets out to develop depoliticizing communication strategies which foster social consensus and public engagement. In contrast to this, the critical debate perspective problematizes climate change's capture in a depoliticized consensus and calls for its repoliticization to revive democratic debate and citizenship. The aim of this article is twofold. First, we will distinguish both perspectives on the basis of their diverging problem diagnoses and recommendations. Second, we will argue how only the critical debate perspective provides the tools for transformative socioecological change based on both democratic debate and democratic citizenship. We conclude by discussing how this divergence is reflective of a larger split in the social sciences between problem‐solving and critical theory and how social scientists could contribute to democratic debate and citizenship. WIREs Clim Change 2016, 7:478–485. doi: 10.1002/wcc.405 This article is categorized under: Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Sociology/Anthropology of Climate Knowledge

Suggested Citation

  • Yves Pepermans & Pieter Maeseele, 2016. "The politicization of climate change: problem or solution?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 478-485, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:wirecc:v:7:y:2016:i:4:p:478-485
    DOI: 10.1002/wcc.405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.405
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/wcc.405?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Chhetri, Netra & Ghimire, Rajiv & Wagner, Melissa & Wang, Meng, 2020. "Global citizen deliberation: Case of world-wide views on climate and energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    2. Sibo Chen, 2020. "Debating Extractivism: Stakeholder Communications in British Columbia’s Liquefied Natural Gas Controversy," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.

    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:wly:wirecc:v:7:y:2016:i:4:p:478-485. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1757-7799 .

    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.