This paper summarizes the results of a research project analyzing communication about global warming among those in the fields of science, politics, and the media in Germany between 1975 and 1995. The methodology of discourse analysis has been applied to investigate the changing perceptions of climate change over time and the ways in which it became an important issue on Germany's political agenda. The first part of the paper will briefly introduce the underlying theoretical assumptions and explain the multiple steps by which data covering a period of two decades have been collected and analyzed. In the second part, the paper will provide the reader with the main research results, indicating the usefulness of distinguishing among the separate discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. The results suggest that there are specific discourse dynamics common to each of the three spheres, as well as some important disparities among them. These findings will be illustrated by a selection of examples typical of the samples analyzed. Finally, the third part of the paper will discuss the broader theoretical and practical implications of these results, which suggest that modern societies must cope not only with environmental risks but also with the risks inherent in communication.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
It is interesting to note that the term “global warming” seems to prevail in the U.S. debate, whereas “climate change” (or, later, climate catastrophe) was more frequently used in the German debate.
2.
C. Trumbo , “Constructing climate change: claims and frames in U.S. news coverage of an environmental issue,”Public Understanding of Science5 (1996): 269-283.
3.
Cf. John H. Cushman Jr., “Industrial group plans to battle climate treaty,”The New York Times, April 26, 1998: 1, 17.
4.
R. Stone , “Environmental toxicants under scrutiny at Baltimore meeting,”Science267 (1995): 1770-1771.
5.
This holds true for scientists and policy makers alike. See Sh. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 230f.
6.
P. Weingart , “Science and the media,”Research Policy27 (1998): 869-879.
7.
N. Luhmann , Risk: A Sociological Theory (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1993).
8.
also the chapter on the early U.S. policy making on greenhouse gases in J. Morone and E.J. Woodhouse, Averting Catastrophe (Berkeley: SAGE Publications, 1986).
9.
N. Luhmann, Die Realität der Massenmedien (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1996).
10.
A special analysis focused on “skeptical communication” (backlash) in media reporting about anthropogenic contributions to climate change. It corroborated the previously identified picture of the dominant discourse. See T. Hornschuh, Skepsis als Schema? Zur Bedeutung des “Backlash” in der Berichterstattung über anthropogenen Klimawandel in deutschen Printmedien (Bielefeld: Diplomarbeit University of Bielefeld, 1999).
11.
An in-depth report on the analysis of the scientific discourse on climate change in Germany can be found in: A. Engels, P. Pansegrau, and P. Weingart, DFG-Projekt “Kommunikation über Klimawandel zwischen Wissenschaft, Politik und Massenmedien, Zwischenbericht Phase 1” (University of Bielefeld: IWT Paper 13, 1996).
12.
References and footnotes given in the original text are excluded in the following quotations for better readability, unless they are central to the understanding of the quotation.
13.
Flohn had already published in the 1940s about the issue of man-made climate change; see H. Flohn, “Die Tätigkeit des Menschen als Klimafaktor,”Zeitschrift für Erdkunde 9 (1941): 13-22.
14.
The fight against nuclear energy was one of the dominant characteristics of the German ecological movement. Cf. D. Rucht, Von Wyhl nach Gorleben. Bürger gegen Atomprogramm und nukleare Entsorgung (München: Beck, 1985).
15.
Arbeitskreis Energie (AKE), “Stellungnahme des Arbeitskreises Energie der DPG zum Kohlendioxidproblem,”Physikalische Blätter 39, no. 9 (1983): 320-323.
16.
The complete text of the warning was printed in the Frankfurter Rundschau, no. 217, September 19, 1986.
17.
Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft (DPG) and Deutsche Meteorologische Gesellschaft (DMG), “Warnung vor drohenden weltweiten Klimaänderungen durch den Menschen,”Physikalische Blätter 43, no. 8 (1987): 347-349.
18.
J. Cavender and J. Jäger, “The history of Germany's response to climate change,”International Environmental Affairs5 (1993): 3-18.
19.
M. T. Hatch , “The politics of global warming in Germany,”Environmental Politics4, no. 3 (1995): 415-440.
20.
PIK, Zweijahresbericht 1994 & 1995 (Potsdam: PIK, 1996); PIK, Mögliche Auswirkungen von Klimaänderungen auf das Land Brandenburg (Potsdam: PIK, 1996).
21.
Bund für Umwelt-und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND) and Misereor, eds., Zukunftsfähiges Deutschland: Ein Beitrag zu einer global nachhaltigen Entwicklung. Studie des Wuppertal Instituts für Klima, Umwelt, Energie (Basel: Birkhäuser, 1996).
22.
Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU), Welt im Wandel. Wege zur Lösung globaler Umweltprobleme. Jahresgutachten 1995 (Berlin: Economica, 1996).
23.
Rat von Sachverständigun für Umweltfragen (SRU), Umweltgutachten 1996 (Stuttgart: Metzler-Poeschel, 1996).
24.
A. Vierecke, Die Beratung der Technologie- und Umweltpolitik durch Enquête-Kommissionen beim Deutschen Bundestag. Ziele—Praxis—Perspektiven.
25.
St. J. Cohen , “Climate change and climate impacts: please don't confuse the two!”Global Environmental Change3, no. 1 (1993): 2-6.
26.
R. A. Kerr , “Hansen vs. the world on the greenhouse threat,”Science244 (1989): 1041-1043.
27.
K. Hasselmann , “Are we seeing global warming?”Science276 (1997): 914-915.
28.
M. Jänicke and H. Weidner, eds., National Environmental Policies (Berlin: Springer, 1997).
29.
Information given in brackets refers to: number of legislative periods, number of session of the ongoing legislative period, date of the session, page in the verbatim minutes.
30.
M. T. Hatch , “The politics of global warming in Germany,”Environmental Politics4, no. 3 (1995): 415-440.
31.
Enquête-Kommission, “Vorsorge zum Schutz der Erdatmosphäre,”Schutz der Erde. Bericht der Enquête-Kommission “Vorsorge zum Schutz der Erdatmosphäre” des 11. Deutschen Bundestages (Berlin: Economica, 1991).
32.
M. Huber , “Leadership and unification: climate change policies in Germany,” in Cases in Climate Change Policy: Political Reality in the European Union, ed. U. Collier and R. E. Löfstedt (London: Earthscan, 1997), 65-86.
33.
SRU, Umweltgutachten 1996 (Stuttgart 1996), 192.
34.
Cf. A. Mazur, “Global environmental change in the news. 1987-90 vs. 1992-96,”International Sociology13, no. 4 (1998): 457-472.
35.
Ch. Eilders , The Role of News Factors in Media Use, FS III 96-104 (Berlin: WZB, 1996).
36.
An article of the same title was published as early as 1979.
37.
C. Trumbo , “Constructing climate change.”
38.
A. Mazur , “Global environmental change in the news,”470.
39.
On the event orientation of the media, cf. S. Friedman, K. Villamil, R. A. Suriano, and B.P. Egolf, “Alar and apples: newspapers, risk and media responsibility,”Public Understanding of Science5 (1996): 1-20. In the example, the media perform a particular “construction” of a series of events that are supposed to “represent” the diffuse phenomenon of climate change.
