Argumente für die Schließung von Tegel nach Eröffnung des BER und ein NEIN beim Volksentscheid (original) (raw)
Related papers
International Journal of Communication, 2022
Climate change denialist think tanks have played a major role in climate obstructionism in the United States, and we are beginning to learn that there are also certain European think tanks acting in line with their U.S. counterparts. In the case of Germany, although the most relevant climate think tanks are aligned with the scientific consensus, one denialist stronghold is represented by the Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (EIKE). This research examines the communication frames that have been used by the think tank to build up a discourse of climate denial and delay, among which the attack on climate science stands out. In addition, this article analyzes press mentions of EIKE, concluding that the think tank's ideas have been critically received by the press. The urgency to act to mitigate the climate crisis makes it necessary to identify obstructionist actors and discourses to counteract them in the media sphere.
Politische Vierteljahresschrift
In the midst of the recent wave of climate activism, a group of scientists formed the initiative Scientists for Future (S4F) to support the Fridays for Future movement and emphasise the scientific evidence their activism is based on. While scientists have participated in policymaking by taking roles as advisers to policymakers in the past, forming a social movement is an unprecedented form of communicating scientific evidence. In this contribution, we assume that the S4F initiative aims to voice dissatisfaction both with prevalent decision-making processes and with the substance of these decisions. Using novel data from a survey conducted among members of this movement in the summer of 2021, we investigated their motivations and perspectives on the role of scientists in democratic processes and their attitudes about a reformist or more radical pathway towards a climate-neutral society and sustainable development. Our analysis shows that the majority of S4F members support democratic...
MacGregor_Against climate populism_Reading workshop_June 2018v2.pdf
Thinkpiece for a workshop at the Univeristy of Reading, 2018
Can "populism" or popular revolt against an "elite" (variously identified with liberal democracy, cosmopolitanism, neoliberal capitalism, or political party establishment) be mobilized for action on climate change and sustainability? Understood as a rejection of pluralism, expertise, and an exclusionary anti-immigrant and white nationalist politics, the answer must be "No." But there are and have been other populisms that, in Laura Grattan's words, have mobilized the "aspirations of ordinary people to exercise power over their everyday lives and their collective fate." Could a populism rooted in everyday concerns find its wellspring elsewhere-in materially grounded forms of social and environmental action? Can the quest for "just transitions" and "just sustainabilities" rooted in everyday experience and practices help us theorize new constituencies and broader possibilities for climate action? This workshop invites reflections on the promises and perils of such a vision and of its populist resonances. The inspiration for the workshop likely comes from suggestions by activists/academics/ journalists that populism should not be heard exclusively as a dirty word and that a left populism-a new common sense vision capable of mobilizing collective movement for a just, stable and sustainable world-is needed in response to the rise of right-wing populism in the USA and parts of Europe. The idea of a 'climate populism' that could inspire action towards 'climate justice' or 'just transition' to a post-carbon world seems an interesting extension of this development. Is it an idea worth pursuing? My position will be no. This is a short 'think piece' is written in response to questions in the workshop abstract and offers some provisional (and provocative) thoughts for discussion and debate. First I will give four interrelated reasons why I am inclined against climate populism, all of which stem from the critical feminist-green perspective that I have been developing over many years. Then, because 'no is not enough' in these times, I discuss an alternative framing, which is informed in part by my reading of Joan Tronto's (2013) theory of 'caring democracy' and The Leap Manifesto (https://leapmanifesto.org/wp-content/uploads/Leaplet-digital-NEW.pdf).
International Journal of Communication, 2023
In January 2022, we published the paper "A Stronghold of Climate Change Denialism in Germany: Case Study of the Output and Press Representation of the Think Tank EIKE." Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie's (EIKE's) spokesperson has produced a rejoinder to our study, based on unfounded accusations through a misinterpretation of Gleick's toolbox on "Deceitful Tactics and Abuse of the Scientific Process." Here, we respond to those accusations by reviewing new evidence available on EIKE and provide further clarification of our conclusions based on the response received and the latest literature. We conclude that EIKE constitutes a clear example of an organization that masquerades as a think tank but whose work does not conform to the academic standards characteristic of such entities. Holding a key role in the German climate countermovement, its goal is not to promote scientific integrity, but rather to distort climate debates and obstruct climate action.
The science is clear: climate change is real. In 2015, 195 countries adopted the global climate deal in Paris. Nonetheless, numerous well-organized conservative think tanks (CTTs) deny that climate change is happening. We ask what kind of counterclaims are used by climate-sceptic CTTs and to what extent these counterclaims change over time. We analyse about 2500 blog articles from prominent CTTs in the USA and Germany between 2008 and 2016. Our results show that sceptical arguments about climate policy and science dominate the countermovement. At the same time, we detect that the prevalence of counterclaims is CTT-specific and that US think tanks show a greater variability compared to their German counterparts. In a surprising outcome, we find that the Paris Agreement did not affect the climate denial movement. Based on these insights, we discuss our contributions to social movement research in the climate change denial context and derive conclusions for pro-climate campaigns.