Power, Policy and Discourse: A Comparative Analysis of United Nations 2015 Paris Climate Agreement Speeches

• In Event: 2483 - Section on Collective Behavior and Social Movements Refereed Roundtable Session
  In Refereed Roundtable 60min: Table 08. Narratives and Storytelling

Abstract

The goal of this study is to apply the Narrative Policy Framework to investigate the strategies used by policymakers from developed and developing countries during the 2015 climate negotiations. Narratives helps construct reality and policies are produced from discursive battles. Battles over meaning in the climate domain are fiercely fought by experts and literatures have identified how narratives can be employed in defining specific domains including power, knowledge, and agency. Specifically, the study seeks answers to the question: Do developed and developing countries employ distinct narrative strategies during these negotiations?

It is posited that developed and developing countries have different interests to protect and that this will be reflected in the narrative strategies employed during climate change negotiations. We analyze 146 speeches given by world leaders and ministers during the Paris 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Using coding categories drawn from the narrative policy framework and social movement framing literatures we identify the discursive strategies of world leaders during this high-profile event. We find that leaders from economically underdeveloped nations are more likely to focus on current problems associated with climate change and the unequal distribution of these negative effects than are leaders from developed countries. Additionally, we develop the concept of an albatross shift to highlight how leaders from underdeveloped countries rhetorically use their perceived weaknesses and disadvantages as a bargaining chip by strategically drawing attention to disproportionate share of the burden of climate change. Three major characteristics define this strategy: first, they claim to contribute minimally to the problem. Second, they claim to be paying the maximum price. Third, they claim to be too weak to bear the burden imposed on them.

Authors

• Scott T. Fitzgerald, University of North Carolina-Charlotte

• Peter Thompson, University of North Carolina-Charlotte