How do we understand political polarization within the U.S. climate change debate? This article unpacks the different components of the debate to determine the source of the political divide that is so noted in the mainstream media and academic literatures. Through analysis of the content of congressional hearings on the issue of climate change, we are able to explain political polarization of the issue more fully. In particular, our results show that, contrary to representations in the mainstream media, there is increasing consensus over the science of the issue. Discussions of the type of policy instrument and the economic implications of regulating carbon dioxide emissions, however, continue to polarize opinion. This article concludes by exploring how these findings help us understand more recent political events around climate change.
AgrawalaS. (1998a). Context and early origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change, 39, 605-620.
2.
AgrawalaS. (1998b). Structural and process history of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change, 39, 621-642.
3.
ArimuraT. H.BurtrawD.KrupnickA.PalmerK. (2007). U.S. climate policy developments (Discussion Paper RFF DP 07-45). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
4.
ArnoldR. D. (1990). The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.
5.
BoykoffM. T.BoykoffJ. M. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38, 1190-1204.
6.
BoykoffM. T.RajanR. (2007). Signals and noise: Mass-media coverage of climate change in the USA and the UK. EMBO Reports, 8, 207-211.
7.
BursteinP.HirshC. E. (2007). Interest organizations, information, and policy innovation in the U.S. Congress. Sociological Forum, 22, 174-199.
8.
ChristiansenA. C. (2003). Convergence or divergence? Status and prospects for US climate strategy. Climate Policy, 3, 343-358.
9.
CiceroneR. J., & the Committee on the Science of Climate Change. (2001). Climate change science: An analysis of some key questions. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
10.
CliftonB. M. (2004). Romancing the GOP: Assessing the strategies used by the Christian Coalition to influence the Republican Party. Party Politics, 10, 475-498.
11.
DeGregorioC. (1998). Assets and access: Linking lobbyists and lawmakers in Congress. In HerrnsonP. S.ShaikoR. G.WilcoxC. (Eds.), The interest group connection: Electioneering, lobbying, and policymaking in Washington (pp. 137-153). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
12.
DunlapR. E.McCrightA. M. (2008). A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environment, 50, 26-35.
13.
FisherD. (2004). National governance and the global climate change regime. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
14.
FisherD. R.LeifeldP.IwakiY. (in press). Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Climatic Change.
15.
FreudenbergW. R.MuselliV. (2010). Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge. Global Environmental Change, 20, 483-491.
16.
GormleyW. T. (1998). Witnesses for the revolution. American Politics Quarterly, 26, 174-195.
17.
HarrisP. G. (2000). Climate change and American foreign policy. New York: St. Martin’s.
18.
HoffmanA. J. (2011). Talking past each other? Cultural framing of skeptical and convinced logics in the climate change debate. Organization & Environment, 24, 3-33.
19.
HoughtonJ. T.JenkinsG. J.EphraumsJ. J. (1991). Climate change: The IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
JacquesP. J.DunlapR. E.FreemanM. (2008). The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17, 349-385.
21.
JonesB. S. (1991). State responses to global climate change. Policy Studies Journal, 19, 73-82.
22.
KraemerR. A.SchreursM. A. (2007). Federalism and environmentalism in the United States and Germany. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
23.
KraneD. (2007). The middle tier in American federalism: State government policy activism during the Bush presidency. Publius, 37, 453-477.
24.
LaumannE. O.KnokeD. (1987). The organizational state: Social change in national policy domains. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
25.
LeifeldP. (2012). Discourse Network Analyzer (DNA) manual. Bonn, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods. Retrieved from http://www.philipleifeld.de
26.
LeifeldP.HaunssS. (2012). Political discourse networks and the conflict over software patents in Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 51(3), 382-409.
27.
LisowskiM. (2002). Playing the two-level game: US president Bush’s decision to repudiate the Kyoto protocol. Environmental Politics, 11, 101-119.
28.
LiuX.LindquistE.VedlitzA. (2009). Explaining media and congressional attention to global climate change, 1969–2005: An empirical test of agenda-setting theory. Political Research Quarterly, 64, 1-15.
29.
LutzenhiserL. (2001). The contours of U.S. climate non-policy. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 511-522.
30.
MazurA. (1998). Global environmental change in the news: 1987–90 vs. 1992–6. International Sociology, 13, 457-482.
31.
McComasK.ShanahanJ. (1999). Telling stories about global climate change: Measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles. Communications Research, 26, 30-57.
32.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2000). Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims. Social Problems, 47, 499-522.
33.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems, 50, 348-373.
34.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1163-1172.
35.
MeyerD. S.StaggenborgS. (1996). Movements, countermovements, and the structure of political opportunity. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1628-1660.
36.
MottlT. (1980). The analysis of countermovements. Social Problems, 27, 620-635.
37.
National Research Council. (2011). America’s climate choices: Panel on advancing the science of climate change. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
38.
OreskesN. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306, 1686.
39.
ParkH. S.LiuX.VedlitzA. (2010). Framing climate policy debates: Science, network, and US Congress, 1976–2007 (Conference proceedings of the Policy Networks Conference 2010). Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/pnconfs_2010/41
40.
ParryM. L.CanzianiO. F.PalutikofJ. P.van der LindenP. J.HansonC. E. (Eds.). (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptations, and vulnerability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
PatersonM. (2009). Post-hegemonic climate politics?British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 11, 140-158.
42.
RabeB. G. (2004). Statehouse and greenhouse: The emerging politics of American climate change policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
43.
RuckerP.WallstenP. (2011, June8). Romney draws early fire from conservatives over views on climate change. Washington Post.
44.
SchneiderS. H. (2009). Science as a contact sport: Inside the battle to save Earth’s climate. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society.
45.
SelinH.VanDeveerS. D. (2007). Political science and prediction: What’s next for US climate change policy?Review of Policy Research, 24, 1-27.
46.
SelinH.VanDeveerS. D. (2009). Changing climates in North American politics: Institutions, policymaking, and multilevel governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
ShanahanJ.GoodJ. (2000). Heat and hot air: Influence of local temperatures on journalists’ coverage of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 285-295.
48.
SheppardK. (2011, June6). Romney stuns world with mundane statement of fact. Mother Jones.
49.
TrumboC. (1996). Constructing climate change: Claims and frames in US news coverage of an environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science, 5, 269-283.
50.
VictorD. G., & Council on Foreign Relations. (2004). Climate change: Debating America’s policy options. Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations, distributed by Brookings Institution.
51.
WeingartP.EngelsA.PansegrauP. (2000). Risks of communication: Discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 261-283.
