Master thesis, 15 hp

Master’s Programme of Political Science / Master’s Thesis in Political Science, 15 hp

Spring Term 2020

Abstract

Using thematic analysis, this study aims to find out if this broadened use of apocalyptic narrative explanations by the current climate change movement has spread to the swedish Green Party, which was chosen because the Green Party is the political party with the closest connection to the modern climate change movement, in terms of ideas and believes but also open support for the movement. Furthermore, this thesis discusses whether or not a change in the window of political opportunities regarding policy suggestions (Overton window) could be detected in relation to this use of apocalyptic narrative explanations. As underlying material three influential representative activist’s speeches - Greta Thunberg, Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez and Luisa Neubauer - were chosen as well as the Green Party’s manifestos for the European Parliament elections of 2014 and 2019. The results show that, even though the party has noticeably increased its use of apocalyptic narrative explanations in the latter manifesto, there seems to be no serious change towards more radical or previously unthinkable policy suggestions.

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 4 2. Aim of the thesis 6 3. Previous research 6 4. Why is it important to fill this research gap? 7 5. The Overton Window Theory 8 6. Apocalyptic Narrative Explanations 10 7. Material and method 12 ​ 8. Delimitations and choice of cases 13 ​ 9. Results 15 ​ 9.1 How do the three activists apply apocalyptic narrative explanations in their speeches? 15 ​ 9.2 Thematic analysis 19 ​ 9.2.1 Taking collective/political vs individual responsibility 19 ​ 9.2.2 Thinking about the next generation 23 ​ 9.2.3 Emphasising the acuteness of climate change 26 9.2.4 Stressing today's political failures 30 9.2.5 Advocating a decrease in emissions and a switch to renewable energy 33 ​ 10. Discussion 36 ​ 11. Conclusion 40 ​ List of References 41 ​ Appendix 44

TRANSCRIPT 1 44

TRANSCRIPT 2 46

TRANSCRIPT 3 48

3

1. Introduction

Environmental activism is undeniably not a new phenomenon anywhere on the planet. However, over the recent years environmental activism has gotten a lot of attention, not least due to swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg and her Fridays For Future movement as well as other charismatic characters in the currently active climate change movement. One important aim for these climate change movements, in addition to creating awareness and changes in behavioural patterns, is to achieve political changes in favour of their values and beliefs, for example by manifesting themselves through forms of protest. (Olzak et al. 2009. P. 203)

As later identified in this study, research on social movement impact on the political sphere, tends to primarily focus on social movements influence on policy changes with the help of movement organization, movement activities, public opinion and elements of the political opportunity structure. Nevertheless, an aspect which so far has not been so common to include in this field of research is the impact the climate change movement can have on parties’ attainable policy suggestions (Overton’s window of possibilities) based on their selected use of apocalyptic narrative explanations (a rhetorical tool some representatives of the movement have been accused of applying) and themes of concern. Consequently, the focus of the following study is the impact of the climate change movement’s use of apocalyptic narrative explanations and choices of issues to talk about, on political parties.

To be able to analyse this three young activists were chosen, Greta Thunberg, Luisa Neubauer and Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez, who will be representing this modern climate change movement based on their dominant positions within today’s movement and their roles as representative speakers. To examine their potential impact on political parties, on the other hand, the Swedish Green Party was decided on, since environmental issues are at the heart of their agenda. Ergo, in theory this should be the party where the impact would be the most visible. Representative for their potential adjustment to the climate movement will be the manifestos from before and after the rise of the Fridays For Future movement in 2018.

Unfortunately, neither of these manifestos have official authors, undoubtedly because the party should stand united behind its contents, which makes it difficult to ask the authors

4

directly about potential influence from the climate change movement. Nevertheless, two of the current members in the European parliament for the swedish Green Party, namely Alice Bah Kuhnke and Pär Holmgren (Europaparlamentet. 2019), who unfortunately were not available for interviews, have expressed themselves positively towards Greta Thunberg and her Fridays for Future movement. Alice Bah Kuhnke even mentioned in an interview with the swedish newsagency TV4, that the Green Party now has the chance to gain the followers as voters, stating: “What Greta Thunberg has done is fantastic. Her, along with 100 000s of ​ children, young adults and their parents all over the world, have made that we, as politicians and political party, which was formed on the basis of environmental and climate issues, have all the reasons to actually keep on fighting for the environment and the climate. And because of [Greta Thunberg’s movement] we are so hopeful, now that there are many more who actually understand [the climate issue]. Many voters want the European Parliament to pursue powerful climate and environmental policies. So now, we [the Green Party] who formed almost 40 years ago have gotten high chances to pick up those feelings and those who want so much more.” 1 (Nyhetsmorgon. 2019. 1:50-3:03. Author’s translation)

Likewise Pär Holmgren stated: “All these demonstrations are fantastically important. It is ​ about building a critical mass in the long run and when there are enough people who want to see a change in politics, in the market and in our behaviors, then, in the end there actually will be a change. [...] It is incredibly important that this movement grows and that we reach this critical mass as quickly as possible.” 2 (Expressen. 2019. 0:45-1:41. Author’s translation) By formulating this the way Pär Holmgren did, saying the first-person plural in the last sentence, he assumed his party - and likely their voters - to be part of the climate change movement, which shows approvement of their beliefs and actions. This in turn shows, that

1 O​ riginal quote: “Det Greta Thunberg har gjort, det är ju något fantastiskt. Hon tillsammans med de 100 ​ 000-tals barn och unga världen över och deras föräldrar har gjort att vi som politiker och politiskt parti - som bildades utifrån miljö- och klimatfrågorna - att vi har all anledning till att faktiskt fortsätta kämpa för klimatet och miljön. Just för [Greta Thunbergs rörelse] är det så hoppfullt nu att det finns så många fler som faktiskt förstår [klimatproblemet]. Många väljare som vill att Eu-parlamentet ska driva en kraftfull klimat och miljöpolitik. Så nu har vi som bildades snart 40 år sedan fått stora chanser att fånga upp de här känslorna och de som vill så mycket.” 2 Original quote: “Alla de här demonstrationerna är ju såklart fantastiskt viktiga. Det handlar om att på sikt ​ bygga en kritisk massa och när det blir tillräckligt många människor som vill se en förändring i politik, i marknaden och i våra beteenden så blir det faktiskt till slut också en förändring. [...] Det är ju fantastiskt viktigt att den rörelsen växer och att vi når den här kritiska massan så fort som möjligt.”

5

there is a big potential that, both the Green Party’s policy suggestions and way of conveying them to the voters has been influenced by the movement over the last couple of years.

2. Aim of the thesis

The aim of this thesis is to examine whether or not the current climate change movement - in particular frontrow activists like Greta Thunberg, Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez and Luisa Neubauer - helped to shift the “Overton window of possibilities” concerning climate change policy suggestions in the swedish Green Party in a more radical direction through apocalyptic narrative explanation approaches in their speeches. To fulfil this aim the following questions will be answered:

1. How do the three activists apply apocalyptic narrative explanations in their speeches? 2. How are the different arising themes, both in the manifestos and activists’ speeches talked about and how do they apply apocalyptic narrative explanations?

This will be followed up by a discussion on if a change in policy suggestions (Overton window of political opportunities) can be observed based on the findings.

To clarify, the first question aims to find out what exactly we will be comparing the use of apocalyptic narrative explanations in the manifestos to, while the second question will help to present the results of the thematic analysis systematically, and thereby to find all the similarities and differences between the movement and the two manifestos.

3. Previous research

Previous studies on speeches and texts about environmental issues by different actors have been highlighted by a number of researchers in different scientific disciplines, such as sociology, linguistics, and discursive/rhetorical social psychology (e.g. Macnaghten and Urry, 1998; Aiello and Bonaiuto, 2003; and Harré, Brockmeier, & Mühlhäusler, 1999). Their research has so far mainly focused on how climate change issues are produced and reproduced within public discourse, focusing in particular on social and public media (e.g.

6

Bell, 1994; Henderson-Sellers, 1998; Mormont & Dasnoy, 1995; Wilkins, 1995; Wilson, 1993; Zehr, 2000; Carvalho, 2007). In depth analyses have, for example, been conducted in areas such as the constructions of uncertainty, scientific controversy and climate scepticism within society through media representation of climate change issues (Antilla, 2005).

Looking at the broader field of environmental communication, previous research has mainly been focusing on environmental movements’ influence on policy making. In line with the bigger social movement research field, the literature has incorporated information on a variety of important factors for social movements to influence policy changes such as social movement organizations, movement activities, public opinion and elements of the political opportunity structure, as well as exploring the ways in which these factors interact and combine to affect policy change. Those studies give among others, valuable insights into the possibilities and limits of varying communication and participation paths of citizen involvement in environmental issues. (e.g. Johnsson, Agnone and John, 2010, Olzak and Soule, 2009, Hicks, 2007 and Agnone, 2007; Depoe, Delicath, & Elsenbeer, 2004; Norton, 2007).

An aspect, which so far has not been common to include is the impact of environmental movements’ way of talking about climate change, more specifically their choice of issues on the agenda and suggested solutions for the problems. There are studies focusing on the rhetoric of politicians (e.g. Kurz and Augoustinos, 2010) but a clear lack of studies combining the effect of influential speeches and texts about environmental issues by social movements and the way climate change is conveyed and discussed in the political sphere. Consequently, there is a need for further research on the rhetoric of social climate change movements (which have environmental issues as their fundamental concern) specifically in connection to the rhetoric of the political sphere (which to a large extent are the movements’ target groups to influence).

4. Why is it important to fill this research gap?

As clarified above, social scientists agree on the fact that the constructions of texts and speeches can be crucial for actors´ perception of a specific issue, such as climate change. It is

7

also agreed that environmental movements can have an impact on the political sphere in form of policy changes, which ultimately means the movements accomplish parts (or all) of their goals, namely to achieve some sort of social change. However, there might be minor but crucial steps along the way. As mentioned above, the literature has identified social ​ ​ movement organizations, movement activities and changing public opinion as such. However one path of influence, namely influencing political parties’ ways of talking about climate change issues can be just as important. Even if this influence may not immediately be realised by societies, the movement itself and the electorate, it still represents a gain in influence by the social movement in the political sphere.

As an illustration, highly positioned politicians might sympathize with the opinions and statements of environmental movements without actually being in a position to create an immediate policy changes in the movements favour. Nevertheless, they can affect the way their own party handles and conveys climate issues to its electorate and thereby potentially gaining the movement supporters as their party voters. If the environmental movement is talking about climate change issues in a more radical way - which one could argue Greta Thunberg’s movement is an example for - doors for new kinds of policy suggestions and ways to talk about the climate change might open up, because the politicians realise that the attitudes and opinions of the citizens allow for more radical policy suggestions. Thus, the environmental movement will not have affected the creation of new policies directly, since their language itself does not create policy proposals. Nonetheless an effect will occur indirectly by opening new doors for more radical policy suggestions for policy-makers. In the words of english professor Lynda Walsh (2015, p. 361):

“To those who have studied and practiced it for 2500 years and counting, rhetoric is the art ​ of communicating in order to build and maintain just polities. It thus forms a bridge between the ideals of philosophy and the realities of politics.” ​

8

5. The Overton Window Theory

The Overton window theory was developed by John Overton in the mid 1990’s, at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a think tank in Michigan, and aims to understand how societal ideas change over time and influence politics. (Mackintac Center. 2006)

The root of the theory is the concept of only a small range of political policies being available for politicians at any time, since the ideas and thoughts of their constituents is limiting what is possible for them to achieve and the legislation they can suggest, promote or support without losing any political success. The term Overton window refers thus to the window in ​ ​ which these few policy possibilities lie, or in other words, in which acceptable political discourse takes place for the general public. Even if it is not unimaginable that politicians might take political actions outside this window, the suggested policies will undoubtedly be unsuccessful, according to the theory. (Mackintac Center. 2006)

Since the Overton window is based on the dominating ideas, attitudes and presumptions of the electorate, the window will inevitably shift over time. Meaning, policies previously impossible to get through because they were lying outside the window, can over a few years time become part of popular political opinions. Likewise can past popular political policies become infeasible with the ideas and attitudes of current times. (Mackintac Center. 2006)

One example for such an occurrence is the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015 in the USA. According to the world value survey (see table 1 below) the opinion on whether homosexuality is justifiable or not in the USA has drastically shifted towards more acceptance of homosexuality in society. Both, the percentage of those considering homosexuality to always be justifiable has increased by 20 percent and the number of those considering homosexuality to never be justifiable has decreased with 39 percent, from the year 1981 to 2014. (OECD. 2019) This led to a shift in the debate surrounding homosexuality from whether or not homosexuality should generally be accepted in society towards whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized. (OECD. 2019) The latter topic was not on the political agenda before the early 2000’s, because a change in ideas and attitudes had to take place, before politicians could suggest such a policy.

9

Tabell 1: Shift in opinion on whether or not homosexuality is justifiable, according to the world value survey from 2014 (Surveys V197 - V204)

What the windows of political opportunities contain, depends among other factors on the country and sometimes even different areas; for example are the attitudes of the south of the USA generally more conservative than those of the north of the USA. Whilst politicians of the north might be ready to implement policies for legalizing adoption for homosexuals who wish to become parents, the politicians of the south might not be for another ten years because of the dominating ideas and attitudes in these places. Likewise, a politician who suggested policies for putting homosexuals in mental institutions in Sweden today would expectedly be unsuccessful and potentially even end his political career, whilst such policies would have been lying within the window of political opportunities in e.g. the 1950’s.

6. Apocalyptic Narrative Explanations

For the following analysis two big works will be used to understand the concept of apocalyptic narrative explanations. Firstly, the foundational works of Killingsworth and Palmer from 1992 and 1996, which is assessing the prevalence and significance of apocalyptic narratives in environmental movements. Secondly, Spoel MA et al.’s work “Public Communication of Climate Change Science: Engaging Citizens Through Apocalyptic Narrative Explanation” from 2008, which analyses the ways a widely spread climate change

10

documentary and a multimedia object theater applied apocalyptic narrative explanation to get citizens to engage in climate change actions.

In both works the researchers examine environmental activists’ use of apocalyptic narrative explanations as a rhetorically effective way to foster public understanding of and public engagement in climate change issues. According to Killingsworth and Palmer, this is possible because the core of the concept is, “[...]to transform the consciousness that a problem exists ​ into acceptance of action toward a solution by prefacing the solution with a future scenario of what could happen if action is not taken, if the problem goes untreated.” (1996. P. 22) In ​ other words, to adopt apocalyptic narrative explanations is to bring forward evidence that proves the occurrence of climate change, which in activists’ cases often is based on contemporary science, to subsequently present future scenarios built on this evidence with the aim of persuading audiences to take actions to prevent such scenarios from happening.

Killingsworth and Palmer (1992. P. 67/68) argue that using this rhetorical tool can mean “great power”, nevertheless actors adopting it should consider the risks in claiming “[...] to ​ ​ ​ ​ base their conclusions in factual information. Facts do not exist in the future, only probabilities and projections. That is why, as Aristotle knew, deliberative discourse - that which debates the course of future action - always involves rhetorical appeals and can never be strictly descriptive and objective.” ​

The concept of apocalyptic narrative explanation is not a recently developed tool but has been applied for centuries. Although, in the case of environmental movements, the use has been most common in situations where the movement intends to gain more support and engagement from new groups. (Killingsworth and Palmer, p. 22)

An analytical factor that Spoel et al. (2008, p. 55) emphasise is that differences in political situations can explain deviations in general emphases and tone in apocalyptic narrative explanations. In their own cases the documentary applied “[...] a generally serious and at ​ times earnestly moralizing tone to communicate the message that [...] climate change is scientifically proven phenomenon. [The multimedia object theatre] by contrast focuses less on making the case that climate change exists and more on defining what the phenomenon of climate change is.” Meaning when analysing different actors - in the following study the ​

11

swedish Green Party and the three environmental activists Greta Thunberg, Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez and Luisa Neubauer - potential differences in emphases and tone could potentially be explained by the actors’ contrasting political roles and situations. Therefore, a consideration of the contexts of both actors is preferably to be done in the analysis.

7. Material and method

The material basis consists of the green Party’s EU-election manifestos of the years 2014 and 2019, which will be compared and contrasted to one another. Since not all of the manifestos’ content deals with climate change issues, the components talking about climate change will be selected, which is roughly about half of the documents. Finally, to actually be able to see ​ ​ potential adjustments to Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez, Greta and her climate change movement and to fulfil the aim of the thesis, Greta’s famous speech held in the EU parliament in early 2019, Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez’ speech 2015 in the United Nations General Assembly as well as Luisa Neubauer’s speech in the general meeting of the RWE AG (Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk AG) will also be analyzed and compared to the findings of the manifestos.

To conduct the study, a qualitative method for analyzing texts and speeches will be applied. In this case, thematic analysis prevailed over discourse analysis, since the main purpose of the study will not be to examine how the language in the material itself can be interpreted within the bigger social context of the actors delivering and receiving the texts and the speech, but rather to explore and compare different patterns and themes regarding climate change within the green Party’s election manifestos, and potential changes and adjustments after the breakthrough of Greta Thunberg.

Since thematic analysis explores different themes emerging from texts or speeches, it will help to examine how discourse occurs within the context of environmental communication. By comparing the emerging themes, possible changes, differences and similarities in the activists and manifestos’ themes can be identified. Thereby, it is possible to identify if the activists themes and rhetoric in their speeches has changed or affected how the Green Party communicates the climate change issue to the general public.

12

To conduct the data analysis, Braun and Clarke’s step-by-step guide on thematic analysis (2006, p. 87) seen in the box beneath, will be applied, since it is the first, and so far most widely spread, structured approach to apply when conducting a thematic analysis.

Braun and Clarke’s six step guide for TA:

1. Familiarize yourself with your data 2. Generate initial codes 3. Search for themes 4. Review themes 5. Define and name themes 6. Produce the report

As seen above, the first step is to familiarize with the material by reading and re-reading the manifestos as well as the speeches. During this process initial thoughts and ideas on patterns and themes will be noted in a separate document. Step two will consist of generating the initial codes by giving the interesting features of each line, in each document, a code. Thereafter the original material will be ignored and the focus shifts onto the codes, which will be reviewed one more time, looking for similar ones to combine under the same, sometimes more latent, term. Finally, the results will be reported under the headline “Results” on page 18. (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 84)

8. Delimitations and choice of cases

One of the study’s limitations, which has to be paid attention to, is that just as much as these activists can influence the Green Party’s choice of themes on the climate change, the Green Party or any other political parties could potentially influence what the activists decide to focus on in their speeches, meaning a mutual effect on one another cannot be excluded. Nevertheless, by choosing to also analyse the party’s manifesto of 2014, and by being able to recognize adjustment within themes to the speeches later on, we will or will not be able to

13

observe a shift in the Overton window when it comes to climate change issues towards a more radical and activistic climate change rhetoric.

Keeping this in mind, to be able to identify a potential link between the climate change movement and its’ influence on swedish politics, a clear demarcation for what the term social movement refers to has to be clarified. For this, Andrew Jamison’s (2010. P. 812) well-developed definition, will be adopted in this thesis. Accordingly, a social movement is “a form of collective social behaviour that is explicitly organized for political action.” In ​ other words, it is a non-governmental group of individuals with the same set of values or believes (collective identity) trying to achieve political change for example by manifesting themselves through publicly recognized forms of protest or direct action. This is done by coordinating or organizing with help of a common platform. In the case of the climate change movement, a shared believe is the existence of climate change and the need to act before it is too late for the planet. Varieties do exist in what members think the solutions are for stopping or slowing down climate change as well as what exactly the consequences will look like and how fast humans must act.

Ergo, Greta Thunberg and Luisa Neubauer were chosen as potential influencers because of their fast rising fame within the climate change movement, not least as a result of their, by sceptics sometimes described as panic inducing (e.g. Medium Gen. 2019), speeches in front of national as well as international politicians. Naturally, Luisa Neubauer and Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez (mentioned beneath) are not as commonly known by the swedish masses as Greta Thunberg, having to make a decision on who should represent the whole of the climate change movement however, a consideration of how well-known the activists are internationally and how well their speeches represent the rhetorics of the movement as a whole had to be made.

Among Greta’s most known speeches are the two speeches in front of United Nation assemblies, a speech in front of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), a speech in front of the british parliament as well as her speech in Stockholm in April of 2019. These have led to media headlines all over the world, often because of some catch phrases she decided to work with during the speeches. (Fridaysforfuture. 2019) Additionally, she was

14

awarded two different awards for being, according to the news media “Times”, one of the most influential people of 2019. (Time. 2019) Consequently, it would be difficult for a swedish political party, who has climate change at the heart of their political agenda, to not bear Greta Thunberg in mind when communicating the topic to their voters, considering her success within the movement and influence on the topic.

Luisa Neubauer, as mentioned above, was chosen for the study based on her position within the Fridays for Future movement. She is foremost known as an activist front figure in german-speaking countries but has held well-known speeches about climate change internationally, such as her TED talk in 2019. (TED. 2019) Unlike, Greta Thunberg, Luisa Neubauer is an official member of the german Green Party, for whom she has held a speech in 2019, although not being active in the party’s political work and often criticizing their lack of commitment to climate. (Fink. 2020) Until the European elections in 2019, the speech which earned her the most media attention was in the general assembly of the german energy supply company RWE AG, which is the reason this particular speech was chosen for the following analysis.

Lastly, american-mexican climate activist Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez was selected since he was the internationally most recognized climate activist some years before the Fridays for Future movement emerged. For the analysis his appearance with the most media recognition was chosen, which until the european election in 2015 was his speech in front of the United Nations about the climate change issue. He is not directly involved in the Fridays for Future movement, but has on multiple occasions expressed his support for its members. (Earthguardians. 2019)

9. Results 9.1 How do the three activists apply apocalyptic narrative explanations in their speeches?

To be able to know what exactly we are looking for in the manifestos and what we will be comparing the use of apocalyptic narrative explanations in the manifestos to, the way in which the activists use apocalyptic narrative explanations in their speeches must first be

15

identified. As explained in the theory section, in apocalyptic narrative explanations different rhetorical steps are commonly used. Firstly, the speaker often brings forward evidence proving the existence of climate change, not uncommonly based on current science findings, to then draw the audience a future worst-case scenario to persuade them to take actions against such scenario becoming a reality.

As mentioned before, apocalyptic narrative analysis among climate change activists was, during the last century, used frequently when the movement intended to gain more support and engagement from new groups. (Killingsworth and Palmer. p. 22) Newer, more general studies on the application of apocalyptic narrative explanations are so far not available, therefore more precise numbers on how common it is for members of the climate change movements to make use of this rhetorical tool do not exist. In this thesis, however, I argue that all three of the analysed activists’ speeches include apocalyptic narrative explanations extensively.

Starting with Greta Thunberg, she adopted these apocalyptic explanations throughout her speech in front of the European Parliament in 2019. Unique for this speech is that she formed the apocalyptic scenario with the help of a metaphor, in which she compared the planet to a burning house in need of saving. Greta Thunberg returned to this comparison all throughout the speech, drawing parallels to recent happenings but also using the metaphor to legitimize the alternative, namely solutions for saving the planet from burning down. One example is her using the metaphor to legitimize her suggestion for actions, stating: ”If our house was ​ falling apart, you wouldn't say that you have the situation under control and place the future living conditions for all species in the hands of inventions that are yet to be invented. And you would not spend all your time as a politician arguing about taxes or Brexit. If the walls of our house truly came tumbling down, surely you would set your differences aside and start cooperating. Well, our house is falling apart, and we are rapidly running out of time. And yet, basically nothing is happening.” Thus, apocalyptic narrative explanation can be ​ identified all throughout Greta Thunberg’s speech, with the addition, that she mainly resembles the recent climate situation and her future scenario (in which the planet has burned down) to a burned down house.

16

Looking at the rhetorical steps she used to apply apocalyptic narrative, they are almost identically to Killingsworth and Palmer’s model (1996), including using contemporary science as basis for the future scenario. The best example for this is where the metaphor is left out, specifically her argument for the end of our civilization, where Greta Thunberg starts off by explaining the future as follows: “Around the year 2030, 10 years 259 days and 10 ​ hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.” Subsequently, Greta ​ Thunberg gives the audiences an alternative to this scenario, but one for which each of the audience members must actively work for by reducing emissions: “That is, unless in that ​ time, permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society have taken place, including a reduction of our CO2 emissions by at least 50%. And please note that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not yet been invented at scale, inventions that are supposed to clear our atmosphere of astronomical amounts of carbon dioxide. […]” ​ Finally, both evidence for the collapse of our society if no actions are taken as well as the solutions, which provide the alternative, are backed up by contemporary science: “These ​ projections are backed up by scientific facts, concluded by all nations through the IPCC. Nearly every major national scientific body around the world unreservedly supports the work and findings of the IPCC.”

Similarly, Luisa Neubauer (2019) adopts apocalyptic narrative explanations by basing them on scientific findings and forming the future scenario according to last years’ happenings. She began by listing big catastrophes which hit the planet over the past years due to climate change and, like Greta Thunberg, she supported these statements by mentioning scientific findings, although without specific sources: “We are growing up in a world, in which climate ​ chaos becomes a normality. In which refugee catastrophes, supply shortages and extinction of species will dominate our lives. In which a self-determined life, our future, is overshadowed by the collapse of the ecosystems around us. That is what science predicts and what already is happening. The fear of the next german summer drought, the consequences for agriculture, industry and weakened people draw us a primary picture.”3 Luisa Neubauer ​

3 Original quote: “Aber wir werden in einer Welt erwachsen, in der Klimachaos zur Normalität wird. In der ​ Flüchtlingskatastrophen, Versorgungsengpässe und Artensterben unser Leben dominieren werden. In der ein selbstbestimmtes Leben, unsere Zukunft, überschattet wird vom Zusammenbruch der Ökosysteme um uns herum. Das ist was die Wissenschaft prognostiziert und schon jetzt im Gange ist. Die Angst vor dem nächsten deutschen

17

does not specifically mention what solutions she suggests to reach the alternative scenario. Presumably because the speech was held to an energy company’s decision-makers, to stop them from making a considerable investment in coal as energy source. Accordingly, her trying to prevent this investment should make clear that she proposes her audience does not go through with their decision.

Unlike, the other two activists, in his four years older speech to the UN, Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez (2015) did not follow the model of Killingsworth and Palmer in every aspect. He too argued for the extinction of humans. However, he did not argue for his statements with the help of scientific findings, but rather with the help of his own experiences, telling the audience: “What a lot of people fail to see or seem to ignore is that ​ climate change isn't an issue that's far off in the future. It isn't slowly affecting the ice caps in the poles or the sea-level rise in our oceans. It's affecting us right here, right now, and will only continue to get worse. In a three-month period, my family and I, we witnessed the greatest wildfires and the worst floods that we've ever seen in Colorado history. Frequency and severity of massive storms and massive floods, massive super storms, are increasing all over the planet because of our lack of action — because of the increase of carbon dioxide emissions, because of the way that we are living.” He then used these experiences to ​ legitimize his future scenario, arguing: “What is at stake right now is no longer just the ​ planet, is no longer the environment but what is at stake right now is the existence of my generation. What is at stake right now, what we are fighting to protect, what is in your hands, what is in our hands today is the survival of this generation and the continuation of the human race. That is what is at stake.” Finally, Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez did imply a ​ solution, specifically to take political action, although emphasising that no one can guarantee that it is not happening too late already. “We need you to take action at COP21 before it's too ​ late. […] We look at the world, we see the planet that we will leave to our generation, so don't be afraid to dream big. Because not only is it possible to get off of fossil fuels but it is already happening. Cities and countries around the planet are committing to 100 % renewable energy in the first half of the century. The pope himself called for a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The solutions are here and with them are coming millions of

Dürresommer, den Folgen für die Landwirtschaft, Industrie und geschwächten Menschen malt ein erstes Bild davon.” ​

18

jobs and economic opportunities. Imagine if we took all the money, we are pouring the fossil fuel industry and into the nuclear industry and put that into renewables. Imagine what we could accomplish. Phasing out fossil fuels is a dream that is slowing becoming a reality. And the question is: Will it happen fast enough to avoid further climate catastrophe?” Thus, ​ Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez gave an already existing alternative to the future scenario namely, to switch to renewable energy, which he stressed, must be implemented fast enough through international politics.

These examples show that all of the activists applied apocalyptic narrative explanations in their speeches to influence their audiences. If it has become more common than during the time Killingsworth and Palmer (1996) did their analysis cannot be said based on this. What can be argued for, however, is that the use of this rhetorical tool is widespread among climate activists nowadays.

9.2 Thematic analysis

The thematic analysis in the documents resulted in altogether five common, thoroughly developed themes, which will be discussed individually below. Each theme is introduced with a short summary of the most important findings to thereafter being discussed based on how the respective document tries to convey the theme - in particular if there are applications of apocalyptic narrative explanations -, how the adoption of the theme compares to those of the other documents and, in the case of the manifestos, if there are notable changes in policy suggestions following changes in the themes from 2014 to 2019.

Moreover, since the two manifestos are written in swedish and the activist Luisa Neubauer spoke german when holding her speech, all quotations had to be translated into english by the author of this thesis. Accordingly, all original quotations were added as footnotes beneath.

9.2.1 Taking collective/political vs individual responsibility

The first theme found in the documents concerned responsibility and accountability for both the causes of climate change as well as finding solutions and implementing them in time. In this theme as well as the next theme the same quotation of a future scenario from the 2014

19

manifesto is examined. It is the only scenario in the earlier manifesto where something similar to apocalyptic narrative explanation could be observed. Nonetheless, regarding this theme, which actors are pointed out as responsible and to what extent, moved closer to the activists’ expressed views in the manifesto of 2019.

In the election manifesto of 2014, responsibility is described in two ways. On one hand responsibility is illustrated as something the political parties themselves are supposed to take and that the Green Party is seen as one of the few doing so. This view is for example expressed in statements such as: “When conservative parties choose the interests of large ​ cooperationists above the future of our children, more green politicians are needed.” 4 (2014. ​ P. 2) This can be viewed as a way of declaring that the other parties are focusing more on capitalism and big corporations than on more urgent climate change issues, which is why people should vote for the Green Party, a party focusing on the essential climate problems instead. One can also read into the statement, that the party sees the anti-capitalistic route as the right one to limit the impacts of climate change.

Moreover, this quotation is followed up by a description of a desirable future scenario, which together with the previous quotation indirectly is claiming that such a future is only possible if the Green Party gets enough voters, considering they are the only party taking responsibility for climate change: “For us, the greens, is our responsibility, for our children’s ​ and grandchildren’s possibility to breath fresh air, drink and bath in clean water and grow up without dangerous chemicals in their bodies, a central driving force.” 5 Even though the ​ scenario is giving the positive alternative instead of the pessimistic future events which might happen if no actions are taken, the illustration still fulfils some aspects of Killingsworth and Palmer’s model for apocalyptic narrative explanations due to the scenario essentially being presented with the aim to persuade the audience to accept or talk into actions - in this case voting for the Green Party - to reach the desired future.

4 Original quote: “När konservativa partier väljer storföretagens intresse framför barnens framtid behövs fler ​ gröna politiker.” 5 Original quote: “För oss gröna är vårt ansvar för våra barn och barnbarns möjligheter att andas ren luft, ​ dricka och bada i rent vatten och växa upp utan farliga kemikalier i kroppen en central drivkraft.” ​

20

On the other hand, climate change is in this manifesto described as global issue. Therefore, responsibility to solve it and prevent worse is laid upon the supranational level. In Sweden’s case, the EU is seen as the international representative and consequently accountable for putting together a global climate agreement. This is for example expressed on page four in the statement: ”We want for the EU to take the primary responsibility to bring about a global ​ climate agreement”, 6 meaning, the Green Party of 2014 deemed responsibility and accountability for climate change measures to be primarily carried by political entities.

Even though the EU and parties having to take responsibility for global climate and environmental politics is also expressed in the manifesto of 2019, responsibility is here ​ ​ predominantly talked about as a duty every individual must perform, for example by participating in the elections, regardless if they are a Green Party voter or not. A quote exemplifying this is: “We, who share this planet now, decide the future. We cannot blame ​ ​ ​ anyone else.” 7 (2019. P. 3) This view is not expressed in the earlier manifesto and moves ​ ​ ​ closer to how the three activists view responsibility for climate change actions as shown in the next section. This quotation also represents an application of apocalyptic narrative explanation in the newer manifesto, since it is followed up by the following statement: “Our ​ children will ask us what we did when we realised the extent of climate threats and environmental destruction. The Green Party is partaking in the election because we want to ​ ​ be able to answer that we did what was required and that we changed history together. That we met the threats and built a better world for both people and the environment.” 8 (2019. P. 3) Once again, instead of presenting the negative outcome for not taking responsibility, the party tries to convince the readers into taking action and voting for them by giving an alternative future scenario where their children are proud of them for what they achieved.

Along the same lines Greta Thunberg argued in her speech: “What we are doing now can ​ soon no longer be undone. In this election you vote for the future living conditions of humankind”, as well as “The bigger your platform, the bigger your responsibility. The bigger ​ ​

6 Original quote: “Vi vill att EU ska ta ett huvudansvar för att få till stånd en global klimatöverenskommelse.” ​ ​ 7 Original quote: “Vi som delar den här planeten nu avgör framtiden. Vi kan inte skylla på någon annan.” ​ 8 Original quote: “Våra barn kommer att fråga oss vad vi gjorde när vi insåg vidden av klimathot och ​ miljöförstöring. Miljöpartiet de gröna går till val för att vi vill kunna svara att vi gjorde det som krävdes och tillsammans förändrade historien. Att vi mötte hoten och byggde en bättre värld för både människor och miljö.”

21

your carbon footprint the bigger your moral duty” (Greta Thunberg. 2019) Thereby clearly ​ emphasising, that even though politicians and higher ups have a big responsibility to act in favour of climate change actions, nobody is excluded from having some responsibility. Since this statement is part of her burning house metaphor it is included in an apocalyptic narrative explanation.

Likewise, Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez argued:“[…] what I learned from my cultural heritage ​ is that this life is a gift and it is our responsibility to respect and protect what gives us life. So, I began to look at the world around me and began to learn about the issues that we are facing. I saw that we were facing a crisis that was beginning to affect every living system on our planet. I saw that climate change was going to be the defining issue of our time.” (Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez. 2015) Thereby, not as sharply as Greta Thunberg, Xiuhtezcatl indicates that every living being has the responsibility to nurture nature and consequently to act against climate change.

Furthermore, in the manifesto of 2019, more attention is called to a need for change of companies’ unaccountability concerning environmental work and pollution. The manifesto states among others: “The choices of the consumers are important, but it is not reasonable ​ that the responsibility for climate and environmental work is solely put on the citizens in their role as consumers.” 9 (2019. P. 14) Which introduces policy suggestions such as the one ​ expressed on page 25: “There shall be internationally binding regulations for the ​ responsibility of companies when it comes to the environment and trade union rights. Companies shall be held accountable for all crimes against these regulations.” 10 The party is ​ thereby expressing that even though every person is accountable for the development of climate change, companies are big drivers of the issue who should take some, if not more of the responsibility for taking climate actions.

In this aspect, once more, the manifesto of 2019 is moving closer to the views of the climate activists than the manifesto of 2014. Again, Greta Thunberg’s earlier quote can be given as

9 Original quote: “Konsumenters val är viktiga men det är inte rimligt att ansvaret för klimat- och miljöarbetet ​ läggs i knät på medborgarna i sin roll som konsumenter.” 10 Original quote:”Det ska finnas ett internationellt bindande regelverk för företags ansvar vad gäller miljö samt ​ mänskliga och fackliga rättigheter. Företag ska kunna ställas till ansvar för brott mot detta regelverk.”

22

an example: “The bigger your platform, the bigger your responsibility. The bigger your ​ carbon footprint the bigger your moral duty. Since companies naturally have a bigger ​ ecological footprint, they also carry more of the responsibility. This is also emphasised by Lisa Neubauer all throughout her speech, for instance by stating: “And all of you in this room ​ (Audience: RWE AG), who carry more of the responsibility than all of the people going to the streets every Friday, you will not one day be able to say that you did not know. Or that you did not see it coming. Or that you thought other people are already taking care of it. Do something with the help of that responsibility.” 11 However, something worth noting was that ​ Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez, who held his ten-minute-long speech before the Fridays for Future movement arose, does not mention companies as particularly accountable actors in climate change, but simply emphasises that we everyone has to act.

9.2.2 Thinking about the next generation

The second theme the speeches and the manifestos have in common is the concern about the upcoming generations; a theme with great potential for the use of apocalyptic narrative explanations as shown beneath. Two of the previous quotations (parts of apocalyptic narrative explanations) will be recurring from earlier since they fit into both themes and illustrate well how the party talks about the next generation. An adaptation to the activists’ speeches could be noted regarding the emphasis on the next generation questioning our current actions.

When underlining an argument with the climate consequences in connection to the next generation in the manifesto of 2014, the Green Party puts a clear emotional aspect into its statements by referring to the worst-case scenario. A quotation expressing this position is the statement mentioned in the previous theme: “For us, the greens, is our responsibility, for our ​ children’s and grandchildren’s possibility to breath fresh air, drink and bath in clean water and grow up without dangerous chemicals in their bodies, a central driving force.” 12 (2014. ​

11 Original quote: “Und Sie hier alle im Raum, die mehr Verantwortung tragen als all die, die jeden Freitag auf ​ die Straße gehen, Sie werden eines Tages nicht sagen können, dass sie es nicht gewusst haben. Oder, dass Sie es nicht haben kommen sehen. Oder, dass sie dachten, es kümmern sich schon andere. Machen Sie etwas aus ihrer Verantwortung.” ​ 12 O​ riginal quote: “För oss gröna är vårt ansvar för våra barn och barnbarns möjligheter att andas ren luft, ​ dricka och bada i rent vatten och växa upp utan farliga kemikalier i kroppen en central drivkraft.“ ​

23

P. 2) Important to notice regarding this part out of this apocalyptic narrative explanation, once again, is that it aims to evoke personal feelings by being relatable to the audience. Moreover, the statement leads readers to consider how life might turn out to be after this generation has left without implementing measurements for climate issues, whereby it might convince to vote for the Green Party.

The manifesto of 2019, on the other hand, adds the dimension that the upcoming generation will be the people holding this generation accountable for its inactions against climate change. More specifically, it considers that generation to be the ones putting the blame on their parents by questioning their current decisions. This is once more examplyfied with an earlier quote, were the party argues: “Our children and grandchildren will ask us which way ​ we chose”, as well as “Our children will ask us what we did when we realised the climate ​ ​ threat and environmental destruction.” 13 (P. 3) Additionally, the party still holds onto its emotional emphasis of harming our children by not working for better living conditions: “Dirty air is a serious health hazard. Children today live and play among dangerous air ​ particles that can make them seriously ill. Exhausts and tire particles lead to lung cancer, heart attacks and strokes and cause more than 3,000 people to die prematurely each year in Sweden alone. This is ten times more than the amount of people dying in traffic accidents.” 14 ​ (2019. P. 6) This scenario is, in comparison to the one in the manifesto of 2014, written in the presence instead of the future, either because the party changed its stance and does consider air pollution to be an immediate problem rather than an issue with symptoms showing itself in the future or because the party changed its rhetorical technique. By presenting current numbers to the audience instead of a speculative future scenario, the Green Party possible hopes to gain more trust while still evoking emotions as well as showing how urgent solving climate change actually is. Whatever the actual reason can only be speculated on, however, it can be stated that the way the party talked about this issue in the latter manifesto does not have an evident conformity to the way the activists talk about the upcoming generations.

13 Original quotes: “Våra barn och barnbarn kommer att fråga oss vilken väg vi valde. And Våra barn kommer ​ ​ ​ att fråga oss vad vi gjorde när vi insåg klimathot och miljöförstöring.” 14 Original quote: “Smutsig luft är en allvarlig hälsorisk. Barn lever och leker i dag bland farliga luftpartiklar ​ som kan göra dem allvarligt sjuka. Avgaser och däckpartiklar leder till lungcancer, hjärtinfarkter och stroke och gör att fler än 3 000 människor dör i förtid varje år bara i Sverige. Det är tio gånger fler jämfört med hur många som dör i trafikolyckor.”

24

Luisa Neubauer, Greta Thunberg and Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez address this particular theme with the distinction that these activists, because of their young age, count themselves as part of the generation questioning their parents. Greta Thunberg for example stated: “You ​ need to listen to us, we who cannot vote. You need to vote for us, for your children and grandchildren. What we are doing now can soon no longer be undone. In this election, you ​ ​ vote for the future living conditions of humankind.” and “But you cannot ignore [...] the ​ ​ millions of school-striking children who are school-striking for the right to a future.” As well ​ as “You are not mature enough to tell it like is. Even that burden you leave to us children.” ​ ​ (Greta Thunberg. 2019) These quotations show, that Greta Thunberg still highlights climate change as a problem, which will be at its peak after some years instead of now and is therefore more in line with the manifesto of 2014. Unlike, Luisa Neubauer and Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez, Greta Thunberg does, in the analysed speech, not mention the impact today’s political handling of climate change potentially will have on children’s prospective opinion of this generation.

Luisa Neubauer, on the other hand, argued: “I started with the climate strikes in Berlin, ​ because I asked myself if I am doing everything in my power to put an end to the climate madness. I wonder how you are going to answer that question for yourselves, your children and grandchildren.” 15 (Luisa Neubauer. 2019) This can be interpreted as a way of getting ​ another generation to act by implying a future scenario in which their own children and grandchildren will be questioning them on their current decisions, which is similar to the statement (P. 3) in the Green Party’s manifesto of 2019.

Likewise, Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez (2015) emphasised the importance of the future generations’ impression of today’s generation and actions by arguing: “Every generation ​ leaves a mark on this planet, we leave something behind to be remembered by and we are at a tipping point right now, where we will either be remembered as the generation that destroyed the planet, that put profits before future or as a generation that united to address the greatest issue of our time by changing our relationship with earth.” Unlike Luisa ​ Neubauer and both manifestos, Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez made his statement less personal

15 Original quote: “Ich habe mit den Klimastreiks in Berlin angefangen, weil ich mich gefragt habe, ob ich alles ​ in meiner Macht stehende tue, um dem Klimawahnsinn ein Ende zu setzten. Ich frage mich, wie sie diese Frage vor sich, ihren Kindern und Enkeln beantworten.”

25

to the individual listener by not mentioning their own children in particular, but still announced that there is a single alternative to the undesired outcome. Without bringing forward evidence to prove that what he suggested as measures against climate change (as later discussed mainly a switch to 100 percent renewable energy), he still provides future scenarios where one alternative is more attractive than the other, with the aim to get the audience to accept his proposed measures. Therefore, this can be regarded as partly fulfilling the requirements of Killingsworth and Palmer’s apocalyptic narrative explanations.

Finally, in contrast to the manifestos, two of the activists emphasised how the young generation is leading what Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez describes as “the fight against climate change”. Luisa Neubauer (2019) stated: “Today on the streets of Essen, the people are ​ screaming: We are here, we are loud, because you are stealing our future. By that we do not mean, that us young people will simply drop dead one day, because Germany did not leave coal fuel in time. But we are growing up in a world where climate chaos is becoming a normality.” Akin to the description of Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez (2015): “We are flooding ​ ​ the streets and we are now flooding the courts to show the world that there is a movement on the rise and that our generation is at the front of that movements fighting for the solutions that we need.” 16 A potential reason for the Green Party to not include similar statements in ​ the manifestos could be to not lock the doors for other generations as their voters. By not arguing that fighting for climate change action is a “trend” lead and dominated by young people, the manifesto avoids discomforting individuals with strong connections to specific groups, for instance older generations. Additionally, it avoids making the climate change topic a concern of a group and keeps the issue relevant for everyone.

9.2.3 Emphasising the acuteness of climate change

A naturally recurring theme in the analysed material was the acuteness of the climate situation we are in now and, as the analysis beneath will show, this theme too had great potential for applying apocalyptic narrative explanations, which prominently increased in the later manifesto. Notable in these findings was the resemblance and extremity of the future

16 Original quote: “Auf den Straßen in Essen rufen Menschen heute: “Wir sind hier, wir sind laut, weil ihr ​ unsere Zukunft klaut.”Damit meinen wir nicht, dass wir jungen Menschen von ein auf den anderen Tag tot umfallen werden, weil Deutschland nicht rechtzeitig aus der Kohle aussteigt. Aber wir werden in einer Welt erwachsen, in der Klimachaos zur Normalität wird.”

26

scenarios presented by the activists when applying narrative analysis, which nevertheless were not adopted by the Green Party the same way.

In regards to how the activists highlighted the present climate severity in their speeches, two of them put great emphasis on the fact that as soon as in a couple of decades, humankind could be extinct due to the effects of climate change. Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez was in 2015 the first to argue along this line by stating: “What is at stake right now is no longer just ​ the planet, is no longer the environment but what is at stake right now is the existence of my generation. What is at stake right now, what we are fighting to protect, what is in your hands, what is in our hands today is the survival of this generation and the continuation of the human race. That is what is at stake.” This part of an apocalyptic narrative explanation ​ leading to suggesting a global switch to 100 percent renewable energy, was discussed earlier in this document, on page 16.

A similar reasoning was adopted by Greta Thunberg in 2019, when she gave multiple arguments concerning the end of our as well as other kinds. To begin with she stated: ”Around the year 2030, 10 years 259 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.” Later she elaborated on this by stating: “We are in the midst ​ ​ of the sixth mass extinction, and the extinction rate is up to 10,000 times faster than what is considered normal, with up to 200 species becoming extinct every single day.” Subsequently ​ she used these claims to base her reasoning for a complete change of society on, arguing: “So, ​ why waste precious time arguing about what and who needs to change first? Everyone and everything has to change.” Thereby Greta Thunberg applied a future scenario similar to ​ Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez’s, namely a world without the existence of life to convince the audience to act as fast as possible.

The last of the activists, Lisa Neubauer (2019) did not use apocalyptic narrative explanation when highlighting the acuteness of climate measures in the same traditional way, instead leaving the picture for the listener to figure out. By mentioning negative consequences climate change has already had, although not underpinning it with scientific facts (as Killingsworth and Palmer found in apocalyptic narratives explanations to commonly be applied), people get to imagine the effects climate change might have in an undefined amount

27

of time. She framed it as follows: “The fear of the next german summer drought, the ​ consequences for agriculture, industry and weakened people draw us a primary picture.” 17 Thereby, she underlines how serious the situation already is as well as the fact that it will only get worse from now on as long as we do not take measures, which formed her argument for closing down coal mines.

Before any of these activists held their speeches, the Green Party’s manifesto of 2014 had been published touching the subject of acuteness to a much lesser extent. In the full document only two arguments are underlined with the effects climate change will have if no actions will be taken. The first policy change argued for based on how urgent climate change is, is to ban the use of dangerous chemicals in agriculture and other productions where the chemicals might end up harming people and nature. For this, the party pointed out what happens without counteractions on page seven: “If we do not take care of our environment several of ​ the services the environment provides for us, such as clean our water and give us fish, game, berries and mushrooms, will worsen.”18 Likewise, the quote mentioned twice before is valid ​ once again: “For us, the greens, is our responsibility, for our children’s and grandchildren’s ​ possibility to breath fresh air, drink and bath in clean water and grow up without dangerous chemicals in their bodies, a central driving force.” 19 Focusing on the latter half, some of the ​ consequences the party is trying to prevent are described. Although they are harmful and draw an undesirable picture, the party manifesto does not mention mass extinction of humankind.

Despite the fact that the party still did not mention human mass extinction in the manifesto of 2019, the way was theme is adopted changed. In fact, in this manifesto all themes addressed are introduced by explaining today's situation, within the different areas, by shining light on the negative aspects. For example, writing about “Living nature, oceans and forests” on page eight, the section starts off with: “The earth’s ecosystems are threatened. Rainforests are ​ looted to, among others, make space for big plantations to produce palm-oil and cattle food. More and more animal and plants are being eradicated. The oceans are being acidificated

17 Original quote: “Die Angst vor dem nächsten deutschen Dürresommer, den Folgen für die Landwirtschaft, ​ Industrie und geschwächten Menschen malt ein erstes Bild davon.” 18 Original quote: ”Om vi inte tar hand om vår miljö kommer flera av de tjänster som miljön gör oss, som att ​ rena vårt vatten och ge oss fisk, frukt, vilt, bär och svamp, att försämras.” 19 Original quote: “För oss gröna är vårt ansvar för våra barn och barnbarns möjligheter att andas ren luft, ​ dricka och bada i rent vatten och växa upp utan farliga kemikalier i kroppen en central drivkraft.”

28

and warmed up in a pace which changes the preconditions for marine life. Almost all coral reefs, which are homes to millions of species are already destroyed or seriously threatened. Inside stranded whales several kilos of plastics are being found. In many oceans, the overfishing is leading to acutely threatened populations. If we do not act now there will be more plastics in the oceans than fish by the year 2050.” 20 In line with apocalyptic narrative ​ explanations, a solution to improve this situation is subsequently offered: “But it is possible ​ to make a difference. We want to protect and preserve our oceans and forests so that generations to come also can live off and enjoy them.” 21

Another example for this, specifically related to the effects of climate change, is on page six, were the party argues: “Polluted air is a serious health hazard. Today, children live and play ​ among dangerous air particles, which can cause them serious harm. Exhausts and tire particles lead to lung cancer, heart attacks and strokes, causing more than 3 000 early death every year in Sweden alone. That is ten times more than the amount of deaths in traffic accidents.” 22 This illustration is adopted as the introduction and legitimization for the ​ following policy suggestions: “All car traffic cannot be replaced by public transport and ​ bicycles. The modernisation of the car industry must be sped up so that emissions, from the cars still needed, get as low as possible. The expansion of renewable fuel must increase exponentially and the use of different fuel than fossil has to be stimulated. There also have to be requirements for renewable fuels to not counteract other environmental goals or lead to looting rainforests.” 23 These two examples illustrate, that the party sees the use of

20 Original quote: “Jordens ekosystem är hotade. Regnskog skövlas för att bland annat kunna ge plats till stora ​ plantager för att producera palmolja och djurfoder. Allt fler vilda djur och växter utrotas. Haven försuras och värms upp i en takt som förändrar förutsättningarna för allt marint liv. Nästan alla korallrev, som är hem till miljoner djurarter, är redan förstörda eller allvarligt hotade. I strandade valar hittas flera kilo plast. I många hav leder överfiske till akut hotade bestånd. Om vi inte agerar kommer det att finnas mer plast än fisk i haven år 2050.” 21 Original quote: “Men det går att göra skillnad. Vi vill skydda och bevara våra hav och skogar så att ​ kommande generationer också kan leva och njuta av dem. Apocalyptic narrative explanation.” ​ 22 Original quote: “Smutsig luft är en allvarlig hälsorisk. Barn lever och leker i dag bland farliga luftpartiklar ​ som kan göra dem allvarligt sjuka. Avgaser och däckpartiklar leder till lungcancer, hjärtinfarkter och stroke och gör att fler än 3 000 människor dör i förtid varje år bara i Sverige. Det är tio gånger fler jämfört med hur många som dör i trafikolyckor. BUT Allt bilåkande kan inte ersättas med kollektivtrafik och cykel.” ​ 23 Original quote: “Allt bilåkande kan inte ersättas med kollektivtrafik och cykel. Moderniseringen av ​ bilindustrin måste skyndas på så att utsläppen blir så låga som möjligt från alla bilresor som fortfarande kommer att behövas. Utbyggnaden av förnybara drivmedel måste öka kraftigt och användningen av andra drivmedel än fossila ska stimuleras. Det måste också ställas krav på förnybara drivmedel så att de inte motverkar andra miljömål eller leder till skövling av regnskog.” ​

29

undesirable future as well as current scenarios (in other words apocalyptic narratives) as effective enough to apply them to gain voters.

In addition to the increased use of apocalyptic narrative regarding climate acuteness in the latter manifesto, the emphasis on the gravity of climate change acuteness enhanced as well. In the manifesto of 2014 measurements against climate change were not mentioned as part of policy suggestions for creating a more peaceful world. Instead the party settled for a more diplomatic route, leaving out climate change: “The Green Party [instead] wants to create ​ conditions for peace and development through fair global economic structures, democracy-building, mediation and diplomacy. The EU could make a big difference in its immediate area by working for a solution in the Palestine-conflict, for human-rights in Turkey and for independence in western Sahara. It is the non-military competence the EU needs to advance - not the military one.” 24 (P. 24) ​

In the party manifesto of 2019, however, climate change is pointed out to be the biggest threat against peace around the world: “The world needs more conflict prevention and ​ emergency management, mediation and peace interventions. The biggest threat against ​ ​ security policy we are faced with is climate change.” 25 (P. 24) This, in turn, lead to a new set ​ of policy suggestions, which consider climate change as an urgent matter of security, such as the following: ”The Green Party wants increase the investments on emergency management ​ to be able to face threats such as climate change, natural disasters, cyberattacks, violence-promoting extremism and pandemics.” 26 ​

9.2.4 Stressing today's political failures

All the coded and analysed documents acknowledged that the politics of today - the manifesto of 2019 on EU-level, the activists and earlier manifesto on global level - are in some way failing or incapable of dealing with climate change. In this theme only the newer

24 Original quote: ”Miljöpartiet vill [i stället] skapa villkor för fred och utveckling genom rättvisa globala ​ ekonomiska strukturer, demokratibyggande, medling och diplomati. EU skulle kunna göra stor skillnad i sitt närområde genom att arbeta för en lösning i Israel-Palestina-konflikten, för mänskliga rättigheter i Turkiet och för rätt till självbestämmande i Västsahara. Det är den icke-militära kompetensen EU behöver utveckla – inte den militära.” 25 Original quote: “Världen behöver mer av konfliktförebyggande och krisberedskap, medling och fredsinsatser. ​ Det största säkerhetspolitiska hot vi står inför är klimatförändringen.” 26 Original quote: ”[De gröna vill] öka satsningarna på krisberedskap för att kunna möta hot som ​ klimatförändringar, naturkatastrofer, cyberattacker, våldsbejakande extremism och pandemier.”

30

manifesto applies apocalyptic narratives to legitimize their policy suggestions and expands on the theme, however no other distinct adjustment to the activists’ approach of the theme could be identified.

A difference between the manifestos regarding this theme is that the Green Party in the earlier manifesto still puts trust in the potential for the EU to become world leading in climate politics, i.e. to speedily implement effective climate measurement policies, whilst also pointing out what has to be done to reach this target. As written on page four (2014) of the document: “The international climate negotiations are stuck. Somebody has to break the ​ deadlock, take initiative and take on the leadership role. We want the EU to take the main responsibility to bring about a global climate agreement.” 27 Along with the statement on page two: “EU has the opportunity to become world leading in climate politics, but it does ​ matter what politicians one votes for.” 28, the Party makes it clear that even though they ​ recognise that the situation of international politics (in 2013/2014) is difficult, the party has not lost hope in the European Union’s abilities to mediate.

The manifesto of 2019, on the other hand, does not express the same trust in the potential of the EU in its current form and instead advocates a reformation: “The EU has an opportunity ​ to lead the development to reach the UN’s sustainability goals and stop climate change. People should be able to get involved, decisions should be made by citizens and close to citizens. The EU needs to be reformed to be able to focus on meeting the big threats facing us”.29 (P. 26) Amongst others, the party pointed out the EU’s current climate and environmental policies, which the party finds dissatisfying as suggestions like the following show: “Reform all EU regulations, which concern climate and energy so that they live up to ​ the goals of the Paris agreement on emission reductions and other environmental goals.” 30 As well as: “Increase environmental and climate investments in EU’s long-term budget”. 31 ​ ​

27 Original quote: ”De internationella klimatförhandlingarna har kört fast. Någon måste bryta dödläget, ta nya ​ initiativ och ta på sig ledartröjan. Vi vill att EU ska ta ett huvudansvar för att få till stånd en global klimatöverenskommelse.” 28 Original quote: ”EU har möjlighet att vara världsledande inom klimatpolitiken, men det spelar roll vilka ​ politiker man röstar fram.” 29 Original quote: ”EU har en möjlighet att leda utvecklingen för att nå FN:s hållbarhetsmål och stoppa ​ klimatförändringarna. Människor ska kunna engagera sig i EU, beslut ska fattas av medborgare och nära medborgare. EU behöver reformeras för att kunna fokusera på att möta de stora hot vi står inför.“ 30 Original quote: ”Reformera all EU-lagstiftning som rör klimat och energi så att de når Parisavtalets mål om ​ utsläppsminskningar och andra miljömål.” 31 Original quote: “Öka miljö- och klimatinvesteringar i EU:s långtidsbudget.” ​

31

(P. 6) These are some of the policy changes introduced on page five, with the help of the following future scenario: “Together we can create a future to look forward to. A future with ​ trains, which go fast and arrive in time. Preschool yards where children can breathe fresh air. Clean lakes to take a dip in during a midsummer-night. More time to be with each other. Less use and discard with gadgets and people. Living countrysides and new green jobs.” 32 (P. 5) Similar to most of the previous cases where the apocalyptic narrative was applied in the newer manifesto, the future scenario is formulated to illustrate the positive alternative rather than showing the negative consequences occurring without contemporary actions. Yet, the party applies a future scenario to long for, to persuade and convince the readers that their actions are necessary. In the earlier manifesto, no such reformation of the EU or future scenario is suggested, undoubtedly because the Paris Agreement was sealed on December the

th 12 ​ of 2015, i.e. after the manifesto of 2014. ​

In the newer manifesto the party additionally criticises the EU for holding more ambitious countries back in their climate work: “It can be difficult to make a decision regarding ​ important questions in today’s political situation. We want to see a EU, which tries to do things together and has the best minimum rates possible, but when it comes to climate, migration and work on tax evasion it is reasonable to advance the EU and let countries with higher levels of ambitions do more.” 33 (P. 22) An aspect, which has neither come up in any ​ of the activists’ speeches nor the other manifesto.

As written above, the activists also stressed the failure of the political situation during the time of their speeches. Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez, stated in 2015: “We are approaching 21 ​ years of United Nation climate talks and in the last 20 years of negotiations almost no agreements have been made on a bonding climate-recovery plan. Our window of opportunity to take action is shrinking as the problem exponentially increases.” Likewise, Greta ​ Thunberg argued in 2019: “If our house was falling apart, you wouldn't hold three emergency ​ Brexit summits and no emergency summit regarding the breakdown of the climate and

32 Original quote: “Tillsammans kan vi skapa en framtid att längta till. En framtid med tåg som går snabbt och ​ kommer fram i tid. Förskolegårdar där barnen kan andas frisk luft. Rena sjöar att ta ett dopp i en midsommarnatt. Mer tid att vara med varandra. Mindre slit och släng med både prylar och människor. Levande landsbygder och nya gröna jobb.” 33 Original quote: “I dagens politiska läge kan det vara svårt att få till beslut i viktiga frågor. Vi vill se ett EU ​ som försöker göra saker tillsammans och har så bra miniminivåer som möjligt, men i frågor som klimat, migration och arbetet mot skattesmitning är det rimligt att utveckla EU genom att låta länder med högre ambitionsnivå göra mer.”

32

environment. You wouldn't be arguing about phasing out coal in 15 or 11 years. If our house was falling apart, you wouldn't be celebrating that one single nation like Ireland may soon divest from fossil fuels. You wouldn't celebrate that Norway has decided to stop drilling for oil outside the scenic resort of Lofoten Island, but will continue to drill for oil everywhere else for decades.” Lastly, Luisa Neubauer (2019) formulated this argument as follows: ​ “What the world society is doing to the planet right now will one day be described as the biggest political failure of our time.” 34 Thereby, ones again, pointing out that the political decisions taken right now will leave an impression to the generations living on this planet after us.

Consequently, none of the activists broaden the theme to also include ambitious countries or the potential of the EU like the manifestos. Instead the activists emphasise that what today’s politics has achieved is not enough in relation to the extent and rapid progress of climate change, without arguing for the necessity of reformations in political structures.

9.2.5 Advocating a decrease in emissions and a switch to renewable energy

This final theme illustrates that the Green Party and the three activists have a shared idea on what measurements will have to be implemented to stop climate change and prevent their worst-case scenarios in the future. In specific, all the actors advocate a decrease and even a stop in emissions, a fast switch off fossil fuels as well as an implementation of renewable energy. Moreover, even though a shift between the manifestos was found, no distinct shift could be detected towards the way the activists’ adopt this theme.

Ergo, both manifestos favour the same measurements, however, the later manifesto expands on this and favours research for instance on techniques to bind already emitted carbon dioxide, an aspect not referenced by any of the activists. In the 2014 manifesto the Green Party made multiple policy suggestions regarding emissions with the aim to implement what they termed a green shift, such as: “The goal of the Green Party is a society with 100 ​ ​ ​ percent renewable energy sources. Unmodern energy sources such as coal, oil and nuclear

34 Original quote: “Was die Weltgemeinschaft gerade mit dem Planeten anrichtet, wird eines Tages als größtes ​ politisches Versagen unserer Zeit beschrieben werden.”

33

power do not belong in a sustainable society.” 35 (P. 6) “EU shall put a clear price on ​ climate emissions and make it obvious that it pays off to decrease emissions.” 36 (P. 6) As well as “EU shall phase out all use and extraction of coal as well as implement a restriction ​ against shale gas and tar sand mining. EU should discourage new exploitation of fossil fuels, especially important is to protect sensitive areas such as the Arctic.” 37 (P. 6) Instead of introducing these suggestions by illustrating a potential future the way the party imagines it when the suggestions are realised, as the party did in the manifesto of 2019, no future scenario is presented all together.

The manifesto of 2019, on the other hand, adds in addition to the 100 percent renewable energy goal suggestions such as: “The Green Party wants to invest more in research, tests ​ and collaborations to sustainably and effectively tie back some of the emissions that have already been made.” 38 (P. 5) Strongly emphasised is also the investing of EU research: “Strengthen the research programme of the EU and invest more in research and innovation for the climate, for example in renewable energy and sustainable transport.” 39 (P. 6) As mentioned previously, the party does give the reader a better future to long for in case the suggestions are implemented: “Together we can create a future to look forward to. A future ​ with trains, which go fast and arrive in time. Preschool-yards where children can breathe fresh air. Clean lakes to take a dip in during a midsummer-night. More time to be with each other. Less use and discard with gadgets and people. Living countrysides and new green jobs.” 40 (P. 5) ​

Looking at what the activists include in their speeches the focus is put on the lack of motivation among decision-makers to completely get off fossil fuels. Xiuhtezcatl

35 Original quote: ”Miljöpartiets mål är ett samhälle med 100 procent förnybara energikällor. Omoderna ​ energikällor som kol, olja och kärnkraft hör inte hemma i ett hållbart samhälle.” ​ 36 Original quote: “EU ska sätta ett tydligt pris på klimatutsläppen och göra det tydligt att det lönar sig att ​ minska utsläppen.” ​ 37 Original quote: ”EU ska fasa ut all användning och utvinning av kol i EU samt införa förbud mot brytning av ​ skiffergas och tjärsand. EU bör motverka nyexploatering av fossila bränslen, särskilt viktigt är det att skydda känsliga områden som Arktis.” ​ ​ 38 Original quote:“Satsa mer på forskning, tester och samarbeten för att på ett hållbart och effektivt sätt binda ​ tillbaka en del av de utsläpp som redan gjorts.” 39 Original quote: ”Stärk EU:s forskningsprogram och satsa mer på forskning och innovation för klimatet, till ​ exempel för förnybar energi och hållbara transporter.” 40 Original quote: “Tillsammans kan vi skapa en framtid att längta till. En framtid med tåg som går snabbt och ​ kommer fram i tid. Förskolegårdar där barnen kan andas frisk luft. Rena sjöar att ta ett dopp i en midsommarnatt. Mer tid att vara med varandra. Mindre slit och släng med både prylar och människor. Levande landsbygder och nya gröna jobb.”

34

Roske-Martinez argued: “Because not only is it possible to get off of fossil fuels but it is ​ already happening. Cities and countries around the planet are committing to 100 % renewable energy in the first half of the century. The pope himself called for a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The solutions are here and with them are coming millions of jobs and economic opportunities. Imagine if we took all the money we are pouring the fossil fuel industry and into the nuclear industry and put that into renewables. Imagine what we could accomplish. Phasing out fossil fuels is a dream that is slowing becoming a reality. And the question is: Will it happen fast enough to avoid further climate catastrophe? It's time to ​ ​ look to the skies for the solutions that we need. Because the future of energy is no longer down a hole. We need to reconnect and end this mindset that we have that we can continue to take whatever we want without ever giving back or understanding the harm that we are doing to the planet.” For this theme, Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez did not apply an apocalyptic ​ narrative explanation, but still played on the audience’s conscience by questioning what their mindset does to the planet. Additionally, he notes that the listeners must ask themselves if they are acting or planning to act fast enough.

Similarly, Greta Thunberg emphasised to her audience in the European Parliament that whatever they are accomplishing might already be too late: “You wouldn't be arguing about ​ phasing out coal in 15 or 11 years. If our house was falling apart, you wouldn't be celebrating that one single nation like Ireland may soon divest from fossil fuels. You wouldn't celebrate that Norway has decided to stop drilling for oil outside the scenic resort of Lofoten Island, but will continue to drill for oil everywhere else for decades. It's 30 years too late for that kind of celebrations.” Since Greta Thunberg, throughout her speech used the metaphor as ​ the future/parallel scenario, this can also be viewed as a form of apocalyptic narrative explanations, as argued on page 15.

Lastly, activist Luisa Neubauer did not play on the fact that a switch of energy sources is going too slow, since her audience is an energy company which previously invested in coal mines. Thus she emphasises that this action, and the people responsible, did not consider the future when the decision was made by arguing:“Coal energy does not have a future after ​ 2030. It was stolen. And you are the dealers.” 41 Playing on the consequences of coal usage ​

41 Original quote: “Die Kohleenergie nach 2030 hat keine Zukunft. Sie ist geklaut, von uns. Und Sie sind die ​ Dealer.”

35

as well as on the audience’s conscience, she used apocalyptic narrative explanation when stating: “Because Mister Schmitz [Chairman of the board of RWE] is fantasising about a ​ coal-driven future, which does not exist. And by not making plans for a coal-free RWE [german energy corporation] after 2030, he seemingly plans, to take you with him until his downfall.” 42 Luisa Neubauer aimed to get this point across by introducing this argument with ​ the following statement: “You carry more responsibility than any other group of actioners for the disaster, which already shakes the planetary boundaries.” 43

Since the earlier manifesto’s statements and policy suggestions in the whole sum up what the activists stand for one and four years later and the manifesto of 2019 adds new aspects of limiting emissions which none of the activists mention in the analysed material, an influence from the activists’ side can with high likelihood be excluded.

10. Discussion

Finally, in accordance with the aim of this thesis, the following discussion will focus on the discovered similarities and potential adjustments to the activists’ speeches regarding themes and shifts within the themes as well as the apparent effects these rhetorical changes seem to ​ have on the Overton window of political opportunities.

An adjustment towards the activists which could be observed in the analysis was the increase of the use of forms of apocalyptic narrative explanation in the manifesto of 2019. Even though Killingsworth and Palmer’s (1996) definition states that the future scenario in apocalyptic narratives is commonly illustrating what could happen if action is not taken (therefore apocalyptic), in the newer manifesto the use of desirable future scenarios as well as current unpleasant (in extreme forms apocalyptic) situations with the identical goal of “...transforming the consciousness that a problem exists into acceptance of action toward a solution” can be observed on several pages in the document. Since, the same strategic ​ thinking behind apocalyptic narratives also lies behind the application of such scenarios, I argue that it these simply are variations of apocalyptic narrative explanations. A point also

42 Original quote: “Denn Herr Schmitz fantasiert eine kohlebetriebene Zukunft, die es nicht geben wird. Und in ​ dem er keinen Plan für ein kohlefreies RWE nach 2030 aufstellt, plant er anscheinend, sie bis zum Fall mitzunehmen. Wenn Sie ihn lassen.” 43 Original quote: “Sie tragen wie keine andere Gruppe von Aktionären Verantwortung für das Desaster, das ​ heute schon an den planetaren Grenzen rüttelt.” ​

36

stressed in themes one and two, where scenarios fitting in this category could be observed and should not be underestimated as a rhetorical tool.

However, noteworthy is that, even though the activists diligently apply apocalyptic narrative explanations, they adopt the varying forms of apocalyptic narratives identified in the manifestos less often. Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez stood out regarding his use of desirable future scenario yet mostly combined them with negative alternative scenario for the audience to choose from. Activist Luisa Neubauer stood out regarding the adoption of current apocalyptic numbers to convince her audience of the need to take actions. Greta Thunberg on the other hand, decided to extend on the traditional use of apocalyptic narratives by comparing both present and future events to an abstract metaphor of a burning house. Thus it cannot be claimed that the Green Party was influenced to the letter, nevertheless the environmental activists and their movements presumably set an example in the use of apocalyptic narrative to gain followers in general.

Regarding what themes were discussed no change could be detected. The themes touching climate change discussed in the manifesto of 2014 were next to identical to the themes in the newer manifesto, yet the newer manifesto often added new aspects and expanded on old ones. Thus, broadly based on what themes were addressed in the manifesto no shift exists, still smaller adjustments within the themes could be observed. In theme one “Taking ​ collective/political vs individual responsibility” and theme two “Thinking about the next ​ ​ generation” the strongest adaptations towards how the activists pick up the topics could be ​ observed. One reason for this could be because these are constantly recurring and accentuated topics in climate speeches of well-known activists not least by Greta Thunberg and Luisa Neubauer, which seem to be effectively helping to gain followers. Since the swedish Green Party aims to seek out the same audience as the activists, as confirmed by the party’s members of the European Parliament, it would be logical to adapt the same or similar persuasive strategies if they appear to be working.

The third theme “Emphasising the acuteness of climate change” is applied in an extreme way ​ ​ by the activists whose main point was that humankind will be extinct in a couple of decades if no actions against climate change are taken, which the Green Party in 2019 did not adjust to. Likely, because this is neither a fact which can be supported by some consensus in science

37

(therefore it cannot be claimed to be a fact) nor because any of the activist actually describe how exactly climate change will lead to extinction. To once again remind of Killingsworth and Palmer’s statement on future scenarios: “Facts do not exist in the future, only ​ probabilities and projections. That is why, as Aristotle knew, deliberative discourse - that which debates the course of future action - always involves rhetorical appeals and can never be strictly descriptive and objective.” (1996. P. 22) ​

Instead a potential impact on the change in tone for the Green Party when talking about acuteness of climate change could have been the serious weather effects Sweden experienced the previous year rather than the climate change movement. In 2019 the party argued that climate change is the biggest threat against security globally; an extreme emphasis which presumably is the result of the drought, wildfires, groundwater shortages and so on, affecting Sweden during the summer of 2018.

Regarding theme four “Stressing today's political failures” the party itself changed its attitude ​ ​ toward the EU stating it needs to be reformed to be able to handle global climate change negotiations and measurements. A reason to why no adjustment to the activists could be observed can be explained by the manifestos’ focus on the EU (as expected in EU manifestos), among others deep diving into climate policy whilst the activists only stressed that politics is failing climate change internationally (and in Germany) on a general basis, meaning without going into details about political systems or climate policies. Yet, interestingly the Green Party’s increased its ambitions regarding their own climate measurements in the newer manifesto, seemingly five years later wanting to take more responsibility and actions themselves instead of putting the main work in the hands of the EU. This, of course partly depends on the changed political circumstances (i.e. Brexit), new Green Party politicians wanting to be elected as well as climate extremes between the manifestos’ publication which illustrated the severity of climate change.

A reason why no shift towards the activists in the last theme ”Advocating a decrease in ​ emissions and a switch to renewable energy” was found, is the fact that the first manifesto ​ already advocates the same measure the activists support in their speeches (switching to 100 percent renewable energy) and that the activists do not actually propose other measures which

38

the Green Party could orient themselves on. Since the Green Party is a political party running for elections, it needs to give actual policy suggestions to give the voters an idea about how they plan to rule and represent when given the power. Thus, they cannot afford to avoid the topic of climate change measures to implement nor only hang on to a single measure like the activists in the analysed speeches. In this theme the different actors roles become definite. The role of the activists is to get people to take action by convincing them that climate change exists and is rapidly getting worse, whilst the party is a political actor who has to represent their voters and have to actually implement climate measures when being elected.

Finally, all these findings lead to the question: Has the use of apocalyptic narrative explanations by climate change activists lead to broadening the Overton window of political opportunities for the swedish Green Party? As a reminder, broadened policy suggestions ​ means for the party to have more freedom on what actually is feasible to implement, thus being able to propose policies in the manifesto of 2019, which might have been unthinkable in the manifesto of 2014. According to Joseph P. Overton himself, the window simply explains how ideas come in and out of fashion. In line with that this the thesis attempted to examine whether apocalyptic narrative explanations spread through climate activists, can help to legitimize and promote new, potentially previously unfashionable policy suggestions. This is difficult to actually measure but the analysis does give examples of broadened policy spectrums suggested by the Green Party in the manifesto of 2019.

When looking at the change in policy suggestions presented in connection with apocalyptic narrative explanations, a rhetorical tool only used ones in the older manifesto, it becomes clear that the newer manifesto bases most of its policy suggestions (even those that did not change) on forms of apocalyptic narratives. Since apocalyptic narrative explanations are a way of legitimizing and rationalising suggested actions to audiences, they do seem to allow for more leeway. One example for this in the manifesto of 2019 is the reasoning of climate change being a threat against security policy (P. 24). Threat being an emotionally loaded term, allows for proposals for big investments in the crisis response capacities (such as ​ ​ climate change in general, natural disasters and pandemics), a policy area which is not even mentioned in the previous manifesto. This suggestion was certainly not unthinkable in 2014, this example does, however, illustrate how formulations of apocalyptic narratives affect what

39

proposals seem feasible right then as well as how it opens up policy possibilities for the Green Party.

Another example, which demonstrates the broadening of policy suggestion based on apocalyptic narratives is the last theme, where the party increased its ambitions from only suggesting a switch to 100 renewable energy to also include wanting to introduce techniques ​ to convert already emitted carbon dioxide and invest in research working to decrease emissions. (2019. P. 5) As seen on page 33 in this document, these suggestions are legitimized through a narrative explanation. Neither research nor techniques to limit emissions are included in any policy suggestions in the manifesto of 2014. Yet, noteworthy is that the policy proposals presumably also are influenced by the party’s perception of how acute climate change is, which could be a reason for the increased use of apocalyptic narratives in the first place. The same can be observed in theme four, where the party ​ suggests to reform the EU to be able to manage climate change. As explained on page 30 in this document, this policy proposal is also introduced with the help of an apocalyptic narrative. Of course other aspects such as the Green Party’s perception of the EU’s climate policy not being effective, likely influenced the creation of the proposal, however, apocalyptic narrative explanations help the party to legitimize and present such big suggestions to its voters.

11. Conclusion

In summary, the swedish Green Party used apocalyptic narrative explanations to a much greater extent in the manifesto of 2019, which lead to some new or broader policy suggestions but not new themes in general. Thus, there is an adaptation in correlation with the activists regarding the use of apocalyptic narratives but a general adaptation in how to deal with themes based on this use could not be found. Nevertheless, minor adjustments in the formulation of the content in individual themes could be observed. Accordingly, apocalyptic ​ narrative explanations helped the party to justify and present big policy proposals to its voters, even if other aspects influence the creation of the policy suggestions. In other words, the use of apocalyptic narrative explanations spread by climate activists helped the party to legitimize and rationalise big and possibly previously unfeasible policy suggestions.

40

List of References

Agnone, Jon. 2007. Amplifying Public Opinion: The Policy Impact of the U.S. Environmental Movement. Social Forces 85(4).1593-620. ​ ​

Aiello, Antonio and Bonaiuto, Marino. 2003. Rhetorical approach and discursive psychology: The study of environmental discourse. In Mirilia Bonnes, Terence Lee, and Marino Bonaiuto (Eds.). Psychological theories for environmental issues (pp. 235–270). Aldershot: Ashgate. ​ ​

Antilla, Liisa. 2005. Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change. Global Environmental Change 15, 338–352. ​ ​

Bell, Allan. 1994. Media (mis)communication on the science of climate change. Public ​ Understanding of Science 3, 259–275. ​ ​ ​

Braun, Virginia and Clarke, Victoria. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3:2. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. ​ ​

Carvalho, Anabela. 2007. Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science 16. 223–243. ​ ​

Depoe, Stephen, Delicath, John W., & Elsenbeer, Marie-France, A. (Eds.). 2004. ​ ​ Communication and public participation in environmental decision making. Albany, NY: ​ State University of New York Press. ​

Earthguardians. Updated 2019. Xiuhtezcatl Martinez. ​ ​ https://www.earthguardians.org/xiuhtezcatl. Retrieved 2020-04-03. ​ ​ ​ ​

Europaparlamentet. Published 2019. Kontoret i Sverige. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sweden/sv/svenska-europaparlamentariker-2019-2024.html Retrieved 2020-04-22. ​

Expressen. Published September 2019. Greta har lyckats med att förenkla klimatrörelsen. https://www.expressen.se/tv/klimat/par-holmgren-greta-har-lyckats-med-att-forenkla-klimatr orelsen/. Retrieved 2020-04-23. ​

Fridays for Future. 2019. Greta Thunberg speeches. https://www.fridaysforfuture.org/greta-speeches. Published: no details. Retrieved ​ 2020-02-20.

Fink. Published 2020. Interview mit Luisa Neubauer. https://fink.hamburg/2020/03/interview-luisa-neubauer/ Retrieved 2020-03-16. ​ ​

Harré, Rom, Brockmeier, Jens, & Mühlhäusler, Peter. 1999. Greenspeak: A study of environmental discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ​ ​

Henderson-Sellers, Ann. 1998. Climate whispers: Media communication about climate change. Climatic Change 40, 421-456. ​ ​

41

Hicks, Barbara. 2007. Setting Agendas and Shaping Activism: EU Influence on Central and Eastern European Environmental Movements. Environmental Politics 13:1, 216-233. ​ ​ ​ Jamison, Andrew. 2010. Climate change knowledge and social movement theory. Wires. Volume 1. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ​ Johnsson, Erik, Agnone, Jon and McCarthy, John. 2010. Movement Organizations, Synergistic Tactics and Environmental Public Policy. Social Forces 8815. 2267-2292. ​ ​

Killingsworth, M. Jimmie, and Palmer, Jacqueline S. 1992. The rhetoric of scientific activism. In: Ecospeak: Rhetoric and environmental politics in America. Carbondale, IL: ​ Southern Illinois University Press. ​ Kurz, Tim and Augoustinos, Martha. 2010. Contesting the ‘national interest’ and maintaining ‘our lifestyle’: A discursive analysis of political rhetoric around climate change. British ​ Journal of Social Psychology 49. 601–625. ​

Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Russell, Nathan J. 2006. An introduction to the Overton window of political possibilities. https://www.mackinac.org/7504. Published January 4th. ​ ​ (retrieved 2020-02-19)

Macnaghten, Phil and Urry, John. 1998. Contested natures. London: Sage.

Medium Gen. 2019. The Power of Greta Thunberg’s Stare Down. https://gen.medium.com/the-power-of-greta-thunbergs-stare-down-5b16996dc48. Retrieved ​ ​ 2020-03-02.

Miljöpartiet, de gröna. 2014. EU-valmanifest. https://www.mp.se/sites/default/files/eu_valmanifest_2014_a5_w.pdf. Retrieved at latest ​ 2020-02-10.

Miljöpartiet, de gröna. 2019. Valmanifest EU-val. https://www.mp.se/sites/default/files/eu-valmanifest.pdf. Retrieved at latest 2020-02-10. ​ ​

Mormont, Marc and Dasnoy, Christine. 1995. Source strategies and the mediatization of climate change. Media, Culture and Society 17, 49-64. ​ ​

Norton, Todd. 2007. The structuration of public participation: Organizing environmental control. Environmental Communication 1. 146–170. ​ ​

Nyhetsmorgon. Published May 2019. Det Greta Thunberg har gjort är fantastiskt – nu har miljöpartiet chansen att… Nyhetsmorgon (TV 4). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgFoq5VUsTY. Retrieved 2020-04-23. ​

Olzak, Susan, and Sarah, Soule. 2009. Cross-Cutting Influences of Environmental Protest and Legislation. Social Forces 88(1). 201-25. ​ ​

42

OECD. Published 2019. Society at a glance. http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/sag2019-united-states.pdf. Retrieved 2020-03-23. ​

Spoel MA, Philippa; Goforth, David; MA; Hoi Cheu and Pearson, David. 2008. Public Communication of Climate Change Science: Engaging Citizens Through Apocalyptic Narrative Explanation. Technical Communication Quarterly 18:1. 49-81. ​ ​ TED Ideas worth spreading. 2019. Luisa Neubauer. https://www.ted.com/speakers/luisa_neubauer Published: no details. (retrieved 2020-04-06) ​ Time. Emma Gonzalez. 2019. Greta Thunberg. https://time.com/collection/100-most-influential-people-2019/5567758/greta-thunberg/. ​ Published: no details. (retrieved 2020-02-20)

Walsh, Lynda. 2015. The visual rhetoric of climate change. WIREs Clim Change volume 6. ​ ​ 361–368.

Wilkins, Lee. 1993. Between facts and values: Print media coverage of the greenhouse effect,1987–1990. Public Understanding of Science 2, 71-84. ​ ​

Wilson, Kris M. 1995. Mass media as sources of global warming knowledge. Mass ​ Communication Review 22, 75-89. ​

World Value Survey. 2014. Online data analysis - Justifiable: Homosexuality in the USA. Selected samples: United states 1981/1984; 1990/1994, 1995/1999, 2000/2004, 2005/2009, 2010/2013. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp. (retrieved 202-02-20) ​ ​

Zehr, Stephen C. 2000. Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science 9, 85-103. ​ ​

43

Appendix

TRANSCRIPT 1: Greta Thunberg's speech to the EU leaders in the EU Parliament, in Strasbourg, France (Fridays for Future, 2019, April 16) [Movie duration: 12:13 minutes]

“My name is Greta Thunberg. I am 16 years old, I come from Sweden, and I want you to panic. I want you to act as our house is on fire. I have said these words before and a lot of people have explained why that is a bad idea. A great number of politicians have explained that panic never leads to anything good. And I agree, to panic unless you have to is a terrible idea. But when your house is on fire, and you want to keep your house from burning to the ground, then that does require some level of panic. Our civilization is so fragile. It is almost like a castle built in the sand. The facade is so beautiful but the foundations are far from solid. We have been cutting so many corners. Yesterday, the world watched with despair and enormous sorrow how the Notre Dame. Some buildings are more than just some buildings. But the Notre Dame will be rebuilt. I hope that its foundations are strong. I hope that our foundations are even stronger, but I fear they are not. Around the year 2030, 10 years, 259 days, and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where it will be a set of a chain reaction that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization, as we know it. That is, unless in that time, permanent and unpresented changes in all aspects of society have taken place, including a reduction of our C02 emissions by at least 50 percent. And, please note, that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not been yet invented, inventions that are supposed to clear our atmosphere of astronomical amount of CO2.

Furthermore, these calculations do not include unforeseen tipping points and feedback loops like the extremely powerful methane gas escaping from rapidly flowing arctic permafrost. Nor they include all the reluctant warming hidden by air pollution, nor the aspect of equity or climate justice clearly stated throughout the Paris Agreement, which is absolutely necessary to make it work on a global scale. We must also bear in mind that there are just calculations, estimations, that miss that these points of no return might occur sooner or later than that. None can know for sure. We can however be certain that they will occur approximately in these time frames, because these calculations are not opinions or wild guesses. These projections are backed-up by scientific facts concluded by all nations through the IPCC. Merely every national scientific body around the world more certainly supports the work and findings of IPCC. We are in the mid of the 6th mass extinction and the extinction rate is up to ten thousand times faster than what it is considered normal, with up to 2,000 species becoming extinct every single day.

Erosion of fertile topsoil… deforestation of our great forests, toxic air pollution, loss of insects and wildlife, the acidification of our oceans, these are disastrous trends have been

44

accelerated by a way of life that we, here in the financially fortunate part of the world, see it as a way to carry on.

But hardly anyone knows about these catastrophes or understands how they are just a few symptoms of climate ecological breakdown. And how could they? They haven’t been told or, more importantly, they haven’t been told by the right people and in the right way. Our house is falling apart and our leaders need to start acting accordingly because at the moment they are not. If your house was falling apart, our leaders wouldn’t go on like you do today. You would change almost every part of your behavior, as you do in an emergency. If your house was falling apart, you wouldn’t fly around the world in business class talking about how the market will solve everything with clever small solutions to the specific isolated problems. You wouldn’t talk about buying a building away out of the crisis that has been created by “buy and build new things”. If your house was falling apart, you wouldn’t hold three emergency Brexit summits and no emergency summit regarding the breakdown of the climate…

You wouldn’t argue about phasing out coal only in 15 or 11 years. If your house was falling apart, you wouldn’t celebrate that one single nation, like Island, may soon diverse from fossil fuels. You wouldn’t celebrate that Norway has decided to stop drilling for oil outside the scenic resort of Lofoten Island, but will continue to drill for oil everywhere else for decades. It’s 30 years too late for that kind of celebration. If your house was falling apart, the media wouldn’t be writing about anything else. The ongoing climate and ecological crisis will make out all the headlines. If your house was falling apart, you wouldn’t say that you have the situation under control and place the future living conditions for all species in the hands of inventions that are yet to be invented. And you would not spend all your time as politicians arguing about taxes or Brexit. European elections are coming soon and many like me, who are affected most by this crisis, are not allowed to vote. That is why millions of children are taking it to the street to draw attention to the climate crisis. If the roof of our house truly came tumbling down, surely you would set your differences aside and start cooperating.

Well, our house is falling apart and we are rapidly running out of time and yet basically nothing is happening. Everyone and everything has to change so why waste precious time arguing about what and who needs to be changed first? Everyone and everything has to change, but the bigger your platform the bigger the responsibility. The bigger your carbon footprint, the bigger your moral duty. When I tell politicians to act now, the most common answer is that they cannot do anything drastic cause that would be too unpopular among the voters. And they are right of course since the most people aren’t aware of why those changes are required. That is why I keep telling you to unite behind the science, make the best available science the heart of politics and democracy.

The EU elections are coming up soon and many of us who would be affected the most by the crisis, people like me, are not allowed to vote. Nor are we in the position to shape the

45

decisions of business, politics, engineering, media, education or science because the time that takes for us to educate ourselves to do that simply does no longer exists. And that is why millions of children are taking it to the streets, school striking for the climate to create attention for the climate crisis. You need to listen to us, we who cannot vote. You need to vote for us, for your children and grandchildren. What we are doing now can soon no longer be undone. In these elections you’ll vote for the future living conditions of the humankind. And though the politics needed do not exist today some alternatives are certainly worse than others. And I have read that some parties do not even want me standing here today because they desperately do not want to talk about the climate breakdown.

Our house is falling apart, the future as well as what we have achieved in the past is literally in your hands now but it is still not too late to act. It will take a far reach in vision, it will take courage, it will take fears, determination to act now, to lay the foundations where we may not know details on how to shape the ceiling. In other words, it will take cathedral thinking. I ask you to please wake up and make the changes required possible. To do your best is no longer good enough, we must all do the seemingly possible. And it’s ok if you refuse to listen to me. I am after all just a 16-year-old school girl from Sweden, but you cannot ignore the scientists, or the science, or the millions of school striking children who are striking for the right to a future. I beg you: please, do not fail… on this!”

TRANSCRIPT 2: Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez speech on the 9th of October 2015 in front of the United Nations General Assembly [Movie Duration 9:31minutes]

It's really going to take untied actions from all of us in order to make a difference. I am 15 years old … I stand before you today representing my entire generation as well as generations unborn. I stand before you representing the indigenous peoples of this Earth and those that will inherit the effects of our climate crisis that we face today as a global community.

My father raised me in mystical tradition. I learned from my father that all life i sacred. he showed me that every little thing is connected because we all draw life from the same earth and we all drink from the same waters. I was raised in the ceremonies of my people, learning the dances and the songs in the language that was passed on to me by my ancestors. and what i learned from my cultural heritage is that this life is a gift and it is our responsibility to respect and protect what gives us life.

So I began to look at the world around me and began to learn about the issues that we are facing. I saw that we were facing a crisis that was beginning to affect every living system on our planet. i saw that climate change was going to be the defining issue of our time. Seeing this world, seeing my world collapsing around me pushed me to action.

For the last nine years since I was six years old, I've been on the front lines of climate and environmental movements standing up to fight for my future and for our planet. What a lot of

46

people fail to see or seem to ignore is that climate change isn't an issue that's far off in the future. It isn't slowly affecting the ice caps in the poles or the sea-level rise in our oceans. It's affecting us right here, right now, and will only continue to get worse.

In a three month period, my family and I, we witnessed the greatest wildfires and the worst floods that we've ever seen in Colorado history. Frequency and severity of massive storms and massive floods, massive super storms, are increasing all over the planet because of our lack of action — because of the increase of carbon dioxide emissions, because of the way that we are living. And, because of this, young people are standing up all over the planet, because we see that climate change is a human rights issue. It is affecting, especially, developing countries, women, children, and people of color more than anyone else.

What is at stake right now is no longer just the planet, is no longer the environment but what is at stake right now is the existence of my generation. What is at stake right now, what we are fighting to protect, what is in your hands, what is in our hands today is the survival of this generation and the continuation of the human race. That is what is at stake.

So youth are standing up all over the planet to find solutions to the issues that will be left to my generation… youth are using their passions to address some of the greatest issues of our time by planting seed of solutions that can change the world. Over 400 000 people marched on the streets of New York City in the greatest climate March in the history of the world. More than 220 institutions have divested from fossil fuels with the help of student-led movements and that number continues to grow. Youth, like myself, across the US are suing our state and federal governments demanding to take action on climate change immediately. We are flooding the streets and we are now flooding the courts to show the world that there is a movement on the rise and that our generation is at the front of that movements fighting for the solutions that we need.

We are approaching 21 years of United Nation climate talks and in the last 20 years of negotiations almost no agreements have been made on a bonding climate-recovery plan. Our window of opportunity to take action is shrinking as the problem exponentially increases. We need you to take action at COP21 before it's too late. Because, as I said, what's at stake right now is the future of your children, our children, my children. When we look into our eyes, we see the next generation. We see that that is the planet we are leaving to them. We look at the world, we see the planet that we will leave to our generation, so don't be afraid to dream big. Because not only is it possible to get off of fossil fuels but it is already happening. Cities and countries around the planet are committing to 100 percent renewable energy in the first half of the century.

The pope himself called for a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. the solutions are here and with them are coming millions of jobs and economic opportunities. Imagine if we took all the money we are pouring the fossil fuel industry and into the nuclear industry and

47

put that into renewables. Imagine what we could accomplish. Phasing out fossil fuels is a dream that is slowing becoming a reality. And the question is: Will it happen fast enough to avoid further climate catastrophe?

It's time to look to the skies for the solutions that we need. Because the future of energy is no longer down a hole. We need to reconnect and end this mindset that we have that we can continue to take whatever we want without ever giving back or understanding the harm that we are doing to the planet. It's this mindset of destruction — of greed — that is tearing apart our planet. We need to change the fundamental belief of our society. We have to remember that we are all indigenous to this earth and that we are all connected. Every generation leaves a mark on this planet, we leave something behind to be remembered by and we are at a tipping point right now, where we will either be remembered as the generation that destroyed the planet, that put profits before future or as a generation that united to address the greatest issue of our time by changing our relationship with earth.

We are being called upon to use our courage, our innovation, our creativity, and our passion to bring forth a new world. So, in the light of this collapsing world that we see, what better time to be born than now? What better time to be alive than now? Because this generation, the people in this room right here, we get to change the course of history. Humans have created the greatest crisis that we see on the planet, and the greater the challenge, the higher we'll rise to overcome it. ... I don't want you to stand up for us — I want you to stand up with us.

TRANSCRIPT 3: Luisa Neubauer’s speech on the 3rd of May 2019 in front of the RWE General assembly. [Movie Duration 2:03]

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, ich bin Luisa Neubauer und heute hier für Fridays For Future. Seit Dezember 2018, seit vier Monaten, streiken ich und Zehntausende jeden Freitag vor den Rathäusern und Parlamenten und Ministerien. Und heute eben hier. Auf den Straßen in Essen rufen Menschen heute: “Wir sind hier, wir sind laut, weil ihr unsere Zukunft klaut.” Damit meinen wir nicht, dass wir jungen Menschen von ein auf den anderen Tag tot umfallen werden, weil Deutschland nicht rechtzeitig aus der Kohle aussteigt. Aber wir werden in einer Welt erwachsen, in der Klimachaos zur Normalität wird. In der Flüchtlingskatastrophen, Versorgungsengpässe und Artensterben unser Leben dominieren werden. In der ein selbstbestimmtes Leben, unsere Zukunft, überschattet wird vom Zusammenbruch der Ökosysteme um uns herum. Das ist was die Wissenschaft prognostiziert und schon jetzt im Gange ist. Die Angst vor dem nächsten deutschen Dürresommer, den Folgen für die Landwirtschaft, Industrie und geschwächten Menschen malt ein erstes Bild davon. Und Sie hier, sind Teil davon.

Was die Weltgemeinschaft gerade mit dem Planeten anrichtet, wird eines Tages als größtes politisches Versagen unserer Zeit beschrieben werden. Und die Tatsache, dass Sie an dieser

48

vermeidbaren Zerstörung verdienen, als größter Skandal. Ich habe mit den Klimastreiks in Berlin angefangen, weil ich mich gefragt habe, ob ich alles in meiner Macht stehende tue, um dem Klima-Wahnsinn ein Ende zu setzen. Ich frage mich, wie sie diese Frage vor sich, ihren Kindern und Enkeln beantworten. Kein Konzern in ganz Europa trägt mehr Verantwortung für die Klimakrise als RWE. Und Sie hier im Raum, Sie machen das möglich.

Sie tragen wie keine andere Gruppe von Aktionären Verantwortung für das Desaster, das heute schon an den planetaren Grenzen rüttelt. Sie verkaufen Ihre Verantwortung für ein paar Cent Rendite. Sie gehören zur winzig kleinen fossilen Elite der Welt. Einer kleine Elite, die als einzige von der Klimazerstörung profitiert, die sie selber anheizt. Zumindest noch. Denn Herr Schmitz fantasiert eine kohlebetriebene Zukunft, die es nicht geben wird. Und in dem er keinen Plan für ein kohlefreies RWE nach 2030 aufstellt, plant er anscheinend, sie bis zum Fall mitzunehmen. Wenn Sie ihn lassen.

Wer nach 2030 noch ernsthaft plant Kohle zu verstromen hat nicht verstanden, in welcher Krise wir sind. Und, dass die großen Transformationen längst im Gange sind. Mit – oder eben ohne Sie, Herr Schmitz und RWE. Das wissen Sie. Das weiß die Klimawissenschaft. Das weiß die Wirtschaft. Und das wissen wir.

Und während Sie an einer Unternehmenspraxis festhalten, deren Ablaufdatum absehbar ist, lassen sich andere nicht aufhalten. Leute blockieren Straßen und Kraftwerke, Menschen werden laut, Kinder und Jugendliche mobilisieren in nie da gewesenen Zahlen. Innerhalb von einem halben Jahr hat sich die mächtigste Klimabewegung formiert, die die Welt jemals gesehen hat. Wir organisieren uns auf der ganzen Welt, auf jedem Kontinent und gestalten den Wandel, vor dem Sie so die Augen verschließen.

Und es geht weiter: Städte, Länder und Regierungen erklären den Klimanotstand und steigen aus der Kohlefinanzierung aus. Versicherungen hören auf Kohleprojekte zu versichern, Finanzinsititute raten davon ab sich zu beteiligen. Pensionsfonds stoßen die Aktien ab, Regierungen wenden sich ab. Der Norwegische Pensionsfonds wird RWE aller Voraussicht nach fallen lassen, weil eine Beteiligung nicht mehr zu rechtfertigen ist. Und das wird erst der Anfang sein. Die Kohleenergie nach 2030 hat keine Zukunft. Sie ist geklaut, von uns. Und Sie sind die Dealer. Die Menschen werden sich eines Tages fragen, wie sie es zulassen konnten, dass es so weit gekommen ist.

Und Sie hier alle im Raum, die mehr Verantwortung tragen als all die, die jeden Freitag auf die Straße gehen, Sie werden eines Tages nicht sagen können, dass sie es nicht gewusst haben. Oder, dass Sie es nicht haben kommen sehen. Oder, dass sie dachten, es kümmern sich schon andere.

Machen Sie etwas aus ihrer Verantwortung. Schalten Sie ab, noch dieses Jahr – und gänzlich bis 2030. Werden Sie Teil von einer Weltrettung in neuen Dimensionen. Bleiben Sie nicht die

49

schweigenden Komplizen der menschengemachten Klimakatastrophe, als Verlierer auf dem sinkenden Schiff von Herrn Schmitz. Gucken Sie sich um. Jeder einzelne hier im Raum kann die Stimme sein, die den Ausstieg von RWE aus der Kohle ein Stück näher bringt. Das heißt auch: Auf jeder Person hier im Raum lastet globale Verantwortung von der sie sich nicht verstecken können. Also werden Sie dem gerecht. An Herrn Schmitz dazu noch zwei Fragen:

Wie stehen Sie zu den Forderungen von Fridays For Future, insbesondere der Forderung nach Abschalten von 25 Prozent der Kohlekraft-Kapazität in 2019 und einem gänzlichen Ausstieg bis 2030? Hat RWE einen Ausstiegsplan?

Vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit.

50