2018 Conference

Individual Paper Presentation

This empirical research paper investigates the framing strategies of climate policy supporters and opponents in the United States. These communicators shape climate-energy discourse through various “issue frames”: message units or narratives that strategically emphasize particular aspects of an issue while downplaying others. Such frames powerfully shape the public narratives surrounding challenging policy problems, as well as potential solutions to those problems. In particular, recent scholarly work in several disciplines has especially highlighted a growing and still unresolved controversy around the role of traditional “science” frames in shaping public opinion in response to strident climate change policy opposition. I explore this topic through qualitative content analysis of over 600 documents published by a climate policy supporter (the Natural Resources Defense Council) and a climate policy opponent (the Heartland Institute). I examine the relationships between traditional science frames and other frame types, determining larger patterns of frame prevalence. In doing so, this project assesses to what extent the dueling framing strategies of these key thought leaders are in conversation with one another, and ultimately considers how such frames might incite or impede the future adoption of climate-energy policies in the United States.