Opening up the societal debate on climate engineering: How newspaper frames are changing

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 1-16

  Scholte, Samantha ^a   Vasileiadou, Eleftheria ^a   Petersen, Arthur C ^a,b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b PBL NETHERLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

climate engineering; environmental technology; geoengineering; newspaper frames

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875213983     PISSN: 1943815X     EISSN: 19438168     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1943815X.2012.759593     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Barrett, S. 2008. The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environ Resour Econ., 39: 29-44.
2. Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE, Lenton TM. 2012. A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. WIREs Clim Change. 3:597-615
3. Boyd, PW. 2008. Ranking geo-engineering schemes. Nat Geosci., 1: 722-724.
4. Boyd, PW. 2009. Geopolitics of geoengineering. Nat Geosci., 2: 812
5. Boykoff, MT and Boykoff, JM. 2007. Climate change and journalistic norms: a case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum., 38(6): 1190-1204.
6. Buck, H. forthcoming. "Climate engineering: spectacle, tragedy, or solution? A content analysis of news media framing". In (De-)constructing the greenhouse: interpretive approaches to global climate governance, Edited by: Methmann, C, Rothe, D, and Stephan, M. Routledge: London.
7. Bunzl, M. 2009. Researching geoengineering: should not or could not?. Environ Res Lett., 4(045104) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/1084/1084/045104
8. Corbett, JB and Durfee, JL. 2004. Testing public (un)certainty of science: media representation of global warming. Sci Commun., 26(2): 129-151.
9. Corner, A and Pidgeon, N. 2010. Geoengineering the climate: the social and ethical implications. Environ Sci Policy Sus Dev Psychol., 52(1): 24-37.
10. Corner, A, Pidgeon, N and Parkhill, K. 2012. Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of "upstream" engagement. WIREs Clim Change, 3(5):451-466
11. Crawley, CE. 2007. Localized debates of agricultural biotechnology in community newspapers: a quantitative content analysis of media frames and sources. Sci Commun., 28(3): 314-346.
12. Cressey, D. 2012. Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid patent row. Nature, doi:10.1038/nature.2012.10645
13. Davies, G. 2011. Framing the social, political, and environmental risks and benefits of geoengineering: balancing the hard-to-imagine against the hard-to-measure. Tulsa Law Rev., 46: 261-282.
14. de Vreese, CH. 2005. News framing: theory and typology. Inf Des J., 13: 51-62.
15. Gamson, W and Modigliani, A. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. Am J Sociol., 95: 1-37.
16. Höijer, B, Lidskog, R and Thornberg, L. 2006. News media and food scares: the case of contaminated salmon. Environ Sci., 3(4): 273-288.
17. Hulme, M. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change. Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Kiehl, JT. 2006. Geoengineering climate change: treating the symptom over the cause?. Climatic Change., 77: 227-228.
19. Krütli, P, Flüeler, T, Stauffacher, M, Wiek, A and Scholz, RW. 2010. Technical safety vs. public involvement? A case study on the unrealized project for the disposal of nuclear waste at Wellenberg (Switzerland). J Integr Environ Sci, 7(3): 229-244.
20. Latham, J, Rasch, P, Chen, CC, Kettles, L, Gadian, A, Gettelman, A, Morrison, H, Bower, K and Choularton, T. 2008. Global temperature stabilization via controlled albedo enhancement of low-level maritime clouds. Philos Trans R Soc., 366: 3969-3987.
21. Leiserowitz A, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N, Dawson E. 2010. Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract = 1633932 (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1633932)
22. Levitt, SD and Dubner, S. 2009. SuperFreakonomics: global cooling, patriotic prostitutes, and why suicide bombers should buy life insurance, Chicago: University of Chicago.
23. Linsky, M. 1986. Impact: how the press affects federal policymaking, New York: W.W. Norton.
24. Lyytimäki, JM. 2007. Temporalities and environmental reporting: press news on eutrophication in Finland. Environ Sci., 4(1): 41-51.
25. Maibach, E, Leiserowitz, A, Cobb, S, Shank, M, Cobb, KM and Gulledge, J. 2012. The legacy of climategate: undermining or revitalizing climate science and policy?. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change., 3(3): 289-295.
26. Matthes, J and Kohring, M. 2008. The content analysis of media frames: toward improving reliability and validity. J Commun., 58: 258-279.
27. Nerlich, B and Jaspal, R. 2012. Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors and the argument from catastrophy. Metaphor Sym., 27: 131-147.
28. Nisbet, MC. 2009. "Framing science: a new paradigm in public engagement". In Understanding science: new agendas in science communication, Edited by: Kahlor, L and Stout, PA,. 40-67. New York: Taylor & Francis.
29. Nisbet, MC, Brossard, D and Kroepsch, A. 2003. Framing science: the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Press/Politics., 8: 36-70.
30. Nisbet, MC and Lewenstein, BV. 2002. Biotechnology and the American media: the policy press and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Sci Commun., 23: 359-391.
31. Olausson, U. 2009. Global warming-global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty. Public Underst Sci., 18: 421-436.
32. Peters, H, Brossard, D, de Cheveigne, S, Dunwoody, S, Kallfass, M, Miller, S and Tsjuchida, S. 2008. Science-media interface: it's time to reconsider. Sci Commun., 30: 266-276.
33. Preston, CJ. 2011. Re-thinking the unthinkable: environmental ethics and the presumptive argument against geoengineering. Environ Values., 20: 457-479.
34. Robock, A. 2008. 20 reasons why geoengineering might be a bad idea. Bull Atom Sci., 64: 14-18.
35. Robock, A, Bunzl, M, Kravitz, B and Stenchikov, GL. 2010. A test for geoengineering?. Science, 327: 530-531.
36. Scheufele, D. 1999. Framing as theory of media effects. J Commun., 49: 103-122.
37. Scheufele, D and Lewenstein, B. 2005. The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanoparticle Res., 7: 659-667.
38. Shepherd, J, Caldeira, K, Haigh, J, Keith, D, Launder, B, Mace, G, MacKerron, G, Pyle, J, Rayner, SRedgwell, C. 2009. Geoengineering the climate-science, governance and uncertainty London: The Royal Society
39. Stirling, A. 2007. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. J R Soc Interface., 4: 707-719.
40. Stirling, A. 2008. "Opening up" and "closing down": power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci, Technol Hum Values., 33(2): 262-294.
41. Strauss, H. 2010. Involving the Finnish public in nuclear facility licensing: participatory democracy and industrial bias. J Integr Environ Sci, 7(3): 211-228.
42. Trumbo, C. 1996. Constructing climate change: claims and frames in US news coverage of an environmental issue. Public Underst Sci., 5: 269-283.
43. Vasileiadou, E, Heimeriks, G and Petersen, AC. 2011. Exploring the impact of IPCC assessment reports on science. Environ Sci Policy., 14(8): 1052-1061.
44. Virgoe, J. 2009. International governance of a possible geoengineering intervention to combat climate change. Climatic Change., 95: 103-119.
45. Weingart, P. 1998. Science and the media. Res Policy., 27: 869-879.