TAR: Mitigation of Climate Change - Chapter 5

Box 5.3. Narratives about Climate Mitigation

Discourse or narrative – the written and spoken word – is one of the most important ways in which governments, businesses, NGOs, and the media influence each other and build agreement on policy directions. One of the most important barriers to GHG mitigation is the perception by some participants in national and international discourses that mitigation efforts might be costly, or might conflict with values such as individual freedom and equity. By analyzing these people’s discourse, new opportunities may be identified for developing GHG mitigation measures that are consistent with their core values. It may also be possible to build new coalitions among institutions and actors, to seek mutually satisfactory GHG mitigation strategies. Discourse and narrative can take many forms, including history, science, philosophy, folklore, and “common sense”. Foucault (1961, 1975) has shown how narratives become an instrument for wielding power. MacIntyre (1985) offers a way of thinking about narrative as part of our cultural context or tradition, as something that we inhabit. Professional analysts, such as scientists and economists, are members of groups that define themselves by such traditions and have their own narratives about the world. Our narratives co-evolve with our notions of “the good”, our understanding of our selves, our conception of society, our science (conception of nature), and our understanding of God or the spiritual dimension (Taylor, 1989; Latour, 1993). These understandings and conceptions are also central to our responses to climate change. Analyzing discourses can provide essential insights into different people’s assumptions and beliefs about the world. Thompson and Rayner (1998), Ney (2000) and Thompson (2000) have mapped out some of the essential features of the discourses that are used to describe and define positions on climate change. They focus in particular on two axes of the discourses: their view of nature and their conception of society. For example, some view the environment as robust, while others view it as fragile and vulnerable to human interference. Some believe that society works best through market-based institutions, while others believe that there should be more explicit emphasis on egalitarian, participatory approaches. Ney differentiates three main orientations: market-based, egalitarian, and contractarian or hierarchical. Some characteristics of these orientations are summarized in Table 5.3. Of these three, the market orientation clearly dominates international negotiations as well as the dialogue on climate change within many countries. It is also the source of the dominant discourse on climate mitigation policy within the IPCC.

Table 5.3: Discourses on climate change (adapted from Thompson and Rayner, 1998)

There are, in fact, many “axes” that can be used to map out discourses on climate change. Another important perspective is that of gender (Grover et al., 1999; Hemmati, 2000). To some extent, the different axes can be correlated with those chosen by Ney, Rayner, and Thompson: feminist discourses have tended to align themselves with egalitarian discourses and in opposition to the hierarchical and market discourses as defined in Table 5.3.