Communicating Climate Justice a Thesis Submitted In

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Revolutionary Talk: Communicating Climate Justice A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Global and International Studies by Theo LeQuesne June 2016 Committee Members: Professor Giles Gunn, Co-Chair Professor John Foran, Co-Chair Dr. Raymond Clemençon, Senior Lecturer The thesis of Theodore Francis LeQuesne is approved. __________________________________________________________________ Raymond Clemencon __________________________________________________________________ John Foran __________________________________________________________________ Giles Gunn, Committee Chair June 2016 ABSTRACT Revolutionary Talk: Communicating Climate Justice By Theo LeQuesne This thesis examines the role that story-based strategy and narrative oriented communications play in the Climate Justice Movement’s counterhegemonic struggle against neoliberal discursive hegemony. As more and more people come to accept the reality of the climate crisis a new struggle is emerging, a discursive struggle over what the crisis actually means. This project identifies an ideological polarization in which climate justice represents a socially transformative bottom up approach to climate change, while hegemonic neoliberal elites advocate for market solutions, technofixes and minimal social change. My project therefore places emphasis upon the role that ideology, norms and values play in shaping attitudes towards climate change solutions and societal transformation. I use Laclau and Mouffe’s theory of discourse and hegemony to provide a framework for studying the rhetoric and implications of climate change discourse. I examine two case studies in the United States: The Our Power Campaign in Richmond, California and the Fossil Free UC fossil fuel divestment campaign as sites of clear hegemonic struggle over how climate change is understood. Together these sites provide a valuable cross-section of climate justice organizations in the US. I discuss the implications of their communications strategies, and in particular what Reinsborough and Canning call story-based strategy. I pay close attention to how reframing narratives help restructure public discourse, as well as the successes and limitations of these discursive interventions. I have found that the strategies iii discussed in these case studies are beginning to shift discursive conditions around solutions to climate change and can be refined, reworked and applied to many other climate justice campaigns. Key terms: Climate Justice, Hegemony, Discourse, Laclau and Mouffe, Climate Change Communication, Counterhegemony, Climate Change, Story-based Strategy, Reframing Narrative, Fossil Free, Our Power Campaign, California, Global Studies iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 I. Literature Review 16 II. Case Study One: Fossil Free UC 56 III. Case Study Two: Our Power, Richmond CA 125 IV. Conclusions, Findings and Implications 171 References 190 v Introduction Twenty-one years too late, the Paris climate talks in 2015 finally agreed that climate change is happening and that it is anthropogenic – the age of climate change denial is drawing to a close (if only insofar as acknowledgement of its existence goes). Despite governments’ best efforts to suggest otherwise, however, the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) achieved little more of substance. Put simply, COP 21 failed to produce a treaty that will mitigate the climate crisis. Current estimates suggest that the pledges made in Paris set global warming on track for a rise of at least three degrees Celsius. Meanwhile the climate science reveals that any increase above one and a half degrees is dangerous and above two degrees is disastrous. Delegates in Paris pledged to review their commitments in five years’ time. Moreover, any language on historic responsibility, human rights, intergenerational equity and gender empowerment – all key principles of climate justice – was removed from the body of the treaty and relegated to its preamble. Nevertheless the very fact that every country in the world collectively agreed to address the climate crisis is remarkable and a historic milestone. What comes after Paris, however, is far more interesting. An ideological, material and discursive struggle over the terms on which the climate crisis must be addressed has been escalating for at least a decade. In fact, we have already witnessed several overt skirmishes but COP 21 has forced this struggle into the open. The next decade will see outright climate denial in decline and in its place the rise of fierce confrontation over what climate change means 1 and the response with which it must be met. COP21 does not signal the end of the climate debate, nor even the beginning of the end, but perhaps it is the end of the beginning. It is here, at the end of the beginning, that my thesis makes its intervention. The terms of the ensuing struggle are profoundly ideological and highly polarized. On the one hand are the enlightened neoliberals and ecomodernists, aligned with what Hardt and Negri might term the forces of Empire, or as I understand it, militarized economic globalization. On the other is the network of social movements and activists comprising the Climate Justice Movement (perhaps an example of Hardt and Negri’s Multitude). The solutions each side presents to the crisis are radically different. While it is important to regard the dualism I have set up with some skepticism and recognize that climate politics are far messier and more complicated than this binary, I have generally found it an accurate and useful heuristic for the purposes of my thesis. Neoliberal elites recognize climate change as a challenge for the market to resolve and an opportunity for both green economic growth and also increased spending on military and security. The approach widely favored by elites everywhere is to allow market mechanisms to cut emissions and to commodify the ecosystems upon which we depend, as well as to rely upon “bridge fuels” derived from fracking and fantasy technology to sequester carbon and store it under ground. Some of the more radical climate conservatives are seriously considering geo-engineering the climate to ensure business as usual continues (Ecomodernist Manifesto, 2015; Giddens, 2011). Should these mechanisms fail and inevitable conflict and instability ensue, these 2 elites will intensify military and security infrastructure to combat the fallout (Mirowski, Walker, and Abboud, 2013). Central to the neoliberal solutions is the belief that carbon emissions are ultimately the responsibility of each individual consumer and it is up to the individual to buy new sustainable products and to make small changes in lifestyle choices, thereby reducing individual emissions. In essence climate change is not considered a threat to the established order but rather as an opportunity to expand and consolidate it. The Climate Justice Movement, meanwhile, interprets climate change as a moral crisis that is deeply rooted in the Global North’s colonial legacy, neoliberal capitalism and contemporary structures of power. Arguing that these must be overturned to address the climate crisis many rally behind the slogan “system change not climate change.” Constituents of the Climate Justice Movement envision solutions to the climate crisis that are radically democratic, context specific, and intersectional (Bullard and Müller, 2012). A few examples of this are energy democracy, decentralized cooperative economics, opposition to free trade deals, recognition of climate debt and historical responsibility, and massive government investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency (Bond, 2012; Klein, 2014). The term many activists use to encompass this response is a “just transition.” Climate justice is a counterhegemonic project antithetical to neoliberal ideology and the security politics it depends upon. Solutions to the climate crisis are proposed on the terrain of hegemony and counterhegemony. More specifically the struggle can be understood discursively, 3 as both sides seek to articulate a set of solutions and vision of the future that is legitimized through public discourse. Hegemonic and counterhegemonic projects alike must constantly structure discursive conditions to legitimize their actions and their ideologies (Laclau and Mouffe, 2014). Using narratives and frames to affect value systems and successfully engage with diverse audiences is crucial. Therefore, when coupled with a careful analysis of power, communication strategy is an essential component to any hegemonic or counterhegemonic project1. This thesis integrates the findings of climate communications scholars with discourse theory and the empirical evidence counterhegemonic communications strategists have brought back from the field. In this way the project tests a theory of change against empirical evidence. It asks how climate justice activists across the globe can structure discursive conditions such that climate justice solutions to climate change are recognized as urgent and legitimate amongst audiences stretching far beyond the Climate Justice Movement itself. In other words, how can the Climate Justice Movement successfully challenge hegemonic climate discourse while engaging with, and appealing to, a larger and more diverse array of audiences? In many cases climate justice activists have so far “failed to establish an anti- capitalist climate justice discourse that [is] understandable beyond the subculture of activists and

Load more