The Greta Effect on Global Environmental Governance: Testing the Applicability of Frame Theory

The Greta Effect on Global Environmental Governance

Testing the Applicability of Frame Theory

Fanni Pirita Hakala

International Relations

Dept. of Global Political Studies Bachelor programme – IR103L 15 credits thesis

Thesis submitted: VT/2021 Supervisor: Dr. Erika Svedberg

Humanity currently faces an existential crisis: anthropogenic climate change. In order to guarantee our survival on a stable planet, immediate mitigation and adaption strategies must be implemented. However, institutions are failing to live up to the task and a concrete action plan is currently non-existent, as climate governance struggles with fragmentation, commitment, and challenges posed by neoliberalism. Since the top-down approach is insufficient, extra-institutional actors are arising as leaders for the environmental agenda. This study narrows down on Greta Thunberg and assesses her capacity in leading the climate movement. The applicability of frame theory (Benford and Snow, 2000) will be tested to understand the mobilisation potential of Greta’s discourse.

The main focus of this examination is to analyse how Greta has used diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational collective action frames in order to place the limelight on the seriousness of climate change and correspondingly how this has led to civil society mobilisation. Through a discourse analysis of her speeches, it was discovered that the framing perspective plays a role in meaning construction for the movement.

Key words: Framing, Collective action, Mobilisation, Greta Thunberg, Climate change, Social movements, Discourse, Global environmental governance

word count: 12640

ABSTRACT ... ii

List of Abbreviations ... iv

List of Tables ... iv

List of Figures ... iv

1. INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Research Question and Purpose ... 2

1.2 Disposition... 3

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 3

2.1 Regime Fragmentation and the Structure of GEG ... 3

2.2 Is it Possible to Situate Climate Governance into Capitalist Societies? ... 5

2.3 The Legitimacy of Social Movements ... 7

2.4 Concluding the Literature Review ... 8

3. THEORY ... 8

3.1 Origins of Frame Theory ... 9

3.2 Operational Theory: Benford and Snow ... 10

4. METHODS ... 12

4.1 The Material: Collection and Relevance ... 13

4.2 Analytical Model ... 14

4.3 Considering the Methodological Limitations ... 16

5. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS ... 16

5.1 Diagnostic Frames - What is the Problem? ... 17

5.2 Prognostic Frames - What is the Solution? ... 19

5.3 Motivational Frames - Why does it Matter? ... 22

5.4 Summary of Findings... 25

6.DISCUSSION ... 26

6.1 Problematic Systems ... 27

6.2 Selective Vision and Ecological Blindness ... 28

6.3 A Green Identity ... 29

6.4 Top-down vs Bottom-up Approach ... 29

6.5 Where Do We Go From Here? ... 31

6.6 Summary ... 32

7. CONCLUSIONS ... 33

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 36

List of Abbreviations

List of Tables

Table 1: Overview of Benford and Snow (2000) ... 12 Table 2: Overview of Materials ... 14 Table 3: Summary of Mobilising Components ... 33

List of Figures

Figure 1: Summary of key findings ... 26 CO2 Carbon dioxide

COP Conference of Parties DA Discourse analysis

EU European Union

FFF Fridays for Future

GEG Global Environmental Governance GHG Greenhouse gas

IO International Organisation

IPCCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IR International Relations

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation UN United Nations

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change WEF World Economic Forum

1. INTRODUCTION

In the era of anthropogenic climate change, effective mitigation and adaption strategies become ever more important, not only to protect fragile ecosystems, but also human security. As the climate crisis worsens so do additional, linked issue areas such as poverty alleviation and development through lack of recourses, forced migration, and an increased likelihood of conflicts (Burke et al., 2009; Eckersley, 2021.). The linkage between a stable climate and the existence of functioning world politics, has anchored the environment into high politics. Even so, it is an issue which is often neglected in the global agenda, and a functional way of managing earth systems has yet to emerge. This thesis gathers the attempts by looking at global environmental governance, or GEG for short.

In sum, GEG is understood as the makeup of governments, civil society, policy, IOs, NGOs, and normative principles with the common goal of increasing effectiveness, responsiveness, and accountability of environmental protection processes in the global arena (Bernauer and Betzold, 2012). While the green agenda has been gaining traction, decades of policy and other institutional instruments to tackle climate change have failed, suggesting that environmental issues cannot be adequately managed top-down (Vulpe, 2020). Climate communicators at the grassroots level have hence aimed to stand up to the challenge. Since GEG is experiencing incoherence and fragmentation, new actors emerge with relative ease (Aykut et al., 2020).

This has been the case with Greta Thunberg, who has become a phenomenon and significant voice in the climate movement. Greta first surfaced in the public eye in 2018 as a 15-year-old for her school strike for climate (BBC, 2020) and has since inspired the public to open their eyes to the realities of climate change. She has established her role as a prominent face, which resulted in the coining of a new term – the Greta effect (Satkuna, 2021). While climate activism in itself is not a new phenomenon, Greta Thunberg and the Fridays for Future movement gained traction in unparalleled ways, particularly regarding the rapid speed the movement manifested in. Millions of people across the globe have joined Greta's school strike, as well as the larger social movement steering toward ecological consciousness. In fact, the 2019 demonstrations for the

climate procured over 7.5 million participants across all continents (excl. Antarctica), making Greta’s movement the largest up to date (Rosane, 2019).

This examination adapts the Benford and Snow (2000) framework, to study how Greta Thunberg’s discourse furthers the climate movement’s ideology and mobilisation strategy. More specifically, collective action and public mobilisation will be narrowed down on. The three core framing tasks of prognostic, diagnostic, and motivational frames will be tested through a discourse analysis of Greta's speeches. This study takes the stance that the system as it stands today is insufficient and explores if bottom-up approaches propose a feasible change of pace, which would result in increased regime effectiveness.

As Greta has a global audience, the collective action frames will be used to illustrate what motivates action and mobilisation worldwide. GEG's characteristics which have been studied to date, do not pay much attention to activism and the role of social movements in agenda setting. As such, the thesis will attempt to show their significance, to contribute to the understanding of climate governance.

1.1 Research Question and Purpose

This study thus examines what has motivated civil society to mobilise and in what ways they have shaped global climate politics and governance. With the aim of understanding the mobilisation for Greta’s cause through a framing perspective on social movements.

Much of the academia covering GEG, especially after 2015 and the Paris Agreement, focusses on aspects in effective negotiations, legal dispositions, or institutional structure (Aykut et al, 2020). However as such, the symbolic and discursive properties tend to be overshadowed in research. The argument will be made that international climate politics are heavily dependent on the way climate change and the required combatting steps are constructed and framed. Since governments and IOs have at large failed to adequately slow down the rate of climate change, this thesis examines the possible role of grassroots activism, in the shape of Greta Thunberg’s social movement. Understanding what motivates public demands for global environmental quality is an especially important research task, as little is known about how the local level or ordinary citizens fit into global environmental processes this poses a gap in the literature. Hence, the following research question is under investigation:

To what extent does the application of Frame theory to Greta Thunberg’s discourse help explain the mobilisation of Fridays for Future?

1.2 Disposition

Here follows a brief review of the structure of this research to orient the reader. This thesis comprises of seven main chapters, each with subsequent subsections. Beginning with a review of significant research where important themes for understanding the topic are lifted, followed by the theory chapter consisting of a brief history of frame theory and the operational framework. Next the research design and methodology are presented and justified, to elucidate how the analysis will be conducted. After these introductory elements are clarified the findings will be presented, followed by a discussion which adds further context to the analysis. The last section of the thesis is the conclusion with final remarks, which is also where suggestions for future research are presented.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This section canvasses the relevant previous research which will aid in orienting the coming analysis. In order to extract relevant findings from the material under study context is needed, which will be achieved by highlighting significant results of previous research. The literature review utilises carefully selected, recent sources, as climate change, both in theorising and its physical aspects, is constantly evolving. The purpose of the review is two-fold: to determine how the topic has been studied previously as well as identify possible gaps in knowledge, and set the foundations for this research.

Below, three themes found in the literature are expanded on, those which are most relevant to building the argument of this thesis. These being: the organisational structure of GEG, issues with green thinking in a capitalist world, and lastly social movements in IR.

Finally, this section concludes with a summary of the key elements and how they will be linked to the study.

2.1 Regime Fragmentation and the Structure of GEG

The first theme of the literature review deals with how GEG is structured, as this goes to show the environment in which Greta Thunberg’s movement has arisen. As climate governance is fragmented, it may have left cracks through which non-traditional actors

have been able to infiltrate the porous regime. While studying the literature, a general consensus on the current status as of GEG being insufficient was found, however views differ on what type of reform should take place.

On one side, is the position that a strong leader is necessary, be that the UNFCCC or a new World Environmental Organisation, and on the other, the stance that we should aim to create synergies between the pre-existent actors for heightened levels of cooperation (Morin et al., 2013: 581). At large, many scholars pinpoint how the traditional hierarchical modes of governance are continuously being replaced by participative, interactive, and deliberative frameworks, which are better equipped to confront the complex, multi-scale factors of problem solving in the climate arena (Bäckstrand and Kuyper, 2017; Aykut et al., 2020; Hall and Persson, 2018).

Though the GEG regime has always possessed a somewhat abstract nature, when it first began emerging in the 1980s, it was envisioned to have a strong leader - the UNFCCC (Aykut et al., 2020). However, since then the UNFCCC has, at least partially, lost this title.

While it has successfully fought against ecological blindness in terms of general agenda setting, the fickle nature of UNFCCC-centric climate politics cannot be disputed (Kuyper et al., 2018). Consider for example, the 2009 Copenhagen Conference’s failure to meet the agenda of adopting a new climate agreement. Likewise, though the 2015 Paris Agreement was originally viewed as a major breakthrough in GEG due to its potential for creating new standards, becoming a blueprint for success, was shaken up by the United States’

withdrawal only two years after ratification (Aykut et al., 2020). If action at the global level receives little to no response at the national, regional, and local levels, it is not likely to result in any concrete solution to climate issues (Ostrom, 2009: 4). In spite of this, non- state actors and civil society have not yet halted, demonstrating a shift in engagement within GEG (Hall and Persson, 2018).

As climate governance is under constant reform, the system has grown at a rate where it cannot keep up, resulting in no longer fitting into the convoluted reality it faces (Gunderson, 2018; Hale, 2020). The original, idyllic make-up of global climate management with clear-cut leaders and objectives has not been actualised. Though not inherently negative, the literature criticises GEG for this as it may lead to a “too many cooks in the kitchen” scenario. The numerous actors involved aim for successful

cooperation in order to build the appropriate atmosphere for GEG to operate in (Morin et al., 2013). Unfortunately, as it turns out this vast number of players is hospitable to confusion, creating a tangled conceptualisation of the structure, especially at the system level. This polycentric nature has left room for parties to emerge from the bottom up, resulting in multilevel governance dispersion (Pattberg and Widerberg, 2015; Riedy et al., 2019; Aykut et al., 2020).

Nevertheless, the presence of non-state actors has been a distinct characteristic of GEG for the past three decades (Bäckstrand et al., 2017), a feature many view in a positive light (Auer, 2020; Eckersley, 2020:271). While recognising the possible muddle created by such regime complexity, the rise of alternative civil society actors, such as Greta Thunberg, is in this study viewed as an important, optimistic change of pace in GEG. It is precisely these trends which have aided Greta and other extra-institutional actors to gain their foothold in climate conversations. The collective agency of social movements will be further examined as the last theme in the literature review, anyhow this section has demonstrated how the top-down approach is struggling, consequently leaving the door open for alternative governance modes. Next, we turn to another systematic problem, that of GEG being embedded in capitalism.

2.2 Is it Possible to Situate Climate Governance into Capitalist Societies?

The previous theme established GEG as a regime which struggles with fragmentation, another obstacle to reaching effective governance is balancing the shades of green – money and environment. This section explores whether there is room for ecological thinking in the neoliberal world obsessed with monetary gains. The relevance of this theme is highlighted as it can speak to both the motivation to participate in as well as possible successes of environmental governance. If turning to environmentally friendly alternatives is perceived as less profitable, is there any reason for a capitalist society to accept, internalise, and act on a move toward sustainable living?

For eco-friendly thinking to actualise it has to fit into the present neoliberal ideas and structures (Okereke, 2008; Lawless et al., 2020: 4), in other words, for GEG to be effective it must fit into the context it occupies. In this case, the context being the neoliberal economic ideologies of the Western states (ibid; Snow, 2020). For GEG to succeed it cannot challenge the values of these societies. Consider for example, the Paris Agreement

of 2015 where Dimitrov (2016) discovered that the parties involved in said agreement found the economic aspects the most agreeable features. Persuasive assertions about the economic advantages of climate action shifted the priority ranking in favour at both national and international commitment levels. Correspondingly, Okereke (2008) noted that climate agreements often experience an unfortunate watering down to fit into the neoliberal economic structures and become mere empty words. Such was the case with The Boat Paper Agreement which voided the transfer of technology between the global North and South in regard to seabed authority, all to align with commercial principles.

Furthermore, the article goes to point out how hegemonic struggles subscribed to neoliberalism pertain in GEG, as North-South redistributive mechanisms are at odds with free market ideals and thus cannot play a major part in the regime (ibid). Ultimately, the difficulties of effective climate governance are exacerbated by the high levels of global inequality (Gunderson, 2018: 725; Eckersley, 2021: 272).

A top-down approach misses the systematic aspects of the problem. Since if the so-called- solutions comfortably fit into the regime of power under capitalism much is left out.

Hence, the materialisation of strong ethical motives with the capacity to create a truly problem-driven response to climate change are crucial to neutralise the threat of late- stage capitalism, and the ecological destruction it brings with it. This is not to say that policy should be discarded as useless, but instead to point to the importance of politically motivating action at all levels. Arguably, relying on policy to solve the climate crisis is a much too pragmatic approach. When facing an issue which calls for expediency, this may seem like the most achievable tactic, yet tacking climate change as a collective action problem may prove to be more efficient (West, 2013). GEG does not exist in a vacuum, it can only be as powerful as other systems looming over it allow. Eco-consciousness clashes with the neoliberal context of world politics, and as such activists tend to point fingers at the economic growth models which sacrifice a healthy planet in favour of profiting the elites. We will return to this theme as it is in line with Greta Thunberg’s discourse, which will become evident later in the text. Hence, this theme was chosen to illuminate capitalism as a major bump in the road toward green societies.

2.3 The Legitimacy of Social Movements

With this backdrop of understanding the system level workings of global environmental governance, we can turn to the aspects of participation and the importance of collective action which is the main focus of the thesis. As mentioned above, GEG has shifted from state centrism and an institution-only focus to including everyday actors as well i.e., civil society, a change welcomed by many (Auer, 2020). The necessitous nature of climate mitigation and adaption calls for a normative shift in the political response to it, as well as IR as a discipline (Beardsworth, 2020; Morin et al. 2013). The UNFCCC oriented approach to GEG overlooks the participation of NGOs and activists (Thew et al., 2021).

Nevertheless, since COP15 the interplay between state and non-state actors in the climate arena has intensified (Bäckstrand et al., 2017: 574). Scholars such as Han and Anh (2020) have additionally studied what has motivated the young generation to mobilise, aiming to discover how said mobilisation has affected climate politics and GEG. Their findings showed that while the youth struggles with agency, their collective action against climate change has helped to increasingly problematise it, suggesting they are valid agents in the environmental arena (Han and Anh, 2020).

In line with the above, others have come to similar conclusions: social movements for the climate encompass progressive resistance and are in fact powerful forces (Holmberg and Alvinius, 2020). The protest is directed at the establishment for their insufficient approach and calls for a more inclusive view of the problem. The movement also gives a voice to those who otherwise may not have been heard e.g., non-human life on earth and endangered species, future generations, and vulnerable populations (ibid: 88). While institutions and states often assert authority through soft modes of governance when approaching climate issues, social movements address the normative dimension more directly and effectively (Bäckstrand and Kuyper, 2017).

In order to achieve pro-environment outcomes, interplay between the regime level and the social, civil spheres is crucial (Lawless et al., 2020; Bennet et al., 2017; Biermann et al., 2012). Governance and the social space are heavily interlinked and feed off each other to thrive. Past research has additionally discovered that for commitment to GEG to take place the norm of taking action must find itself in the “moral temper of the international community” (Lawless et al., 2020: 4) such as has been the case with e.g., human rights and gender equality. This suggests that in order to mobilise the international community

in the feat of combatting climate change effective governance as well as collective action at the grassroots level are necessary. This is also where Greta comes in, as the movement leader she may well possess the tools necessary to create change and further the green agenda, eventually lifting climate change into said moral temper.

Moreover, the relevance of studying social movements in IR has been established, especially when it comes to topics which concern unit change (Davies and Peña, 2019).

As aforementioned, GEG and climate movements fall into this category of moving away from state centrism, further justifying the focus of this thesis. Concludingly, this section has established social movements as legitimate in GEG. To apply this to the research we can turn to the perspectives found in the subfield of social movement studies, the most relevant to this research is Benford and Snow’s approach which will be expanded on in the next chapter.

2.4 Concluding the Literature Review

The above discussion highlights the context and provides important insight for the upcoming analysis. The themes were strategically chosen from previous research to show the environment in which Greta Thunberg has emerged as a key actor as well as where social movements operate in relation to other agents.

In the first section, on GEG’s structure, it was found that the porous nature of the regime has eased the emerging process for extra-institutional climate actors. As there has been a loss of faith in GEG due to a lack of initiative from governments and institutions, grassroots activism hopes to re-establish climate change as the number one priority. The second section increasingly problematised capitalism, which often overshadows the environmental agenda. Lastly, the third theme established the legitimacy of social movements in the fight against climate change. These concepts will be used to support and contextualise the findings in the analysis. Hence, the main takeaway from this section is that while GEG struggles with structural unclarity and battling capitalism, these conditions have further legitimised and enabled climate movements to arise.

3. THEORY

The ambition of this section is to provide orientation of the theoretical foundations upon which the examination is built. In this thesis, the focus lies on Greta Thunberg and FFF,

probing at what motivates mobilisation for their cause. Therefore, Benford and Snow’s Frame Theory is taken as the operational theory and will be employed in the analysis. This perspective has been chosen to answer the research question and signify the importance of framing in the success of grassroots climate initiatives. This study draws upon the work of past scholars to construct a functional analytical model, which builds on how movements frame their cause, solutions, and what makes it resonant to the wider public.

Nevertheless, the main objective of this thesis is to test the applicability of frame theory on the climate movement, or in other words to see what the theory can tell us about Greta’s discourse. The structure of this section is as follows: beginning with a short history of frame theory and ending with Benford and Snow’s framework along with definitions of the key concepts.

3.1 Origins of Frame Theory

Here, a brief origin story of how the theory came to be is given, in order to highlight how this approach connects to the above discussed literature, as well as establish its grounds in International Relations.

A deep-rooted approach to studying social movements is by looking at how they construct and frame their cause. Frame as a term was coined by Goffman (1974), who understood a frame as the culturally bound conceptions of reality which allow one to make sense of it. Goffman argued frames affect daily life events like communication and interactions though the perception of reality. The term has since then travelled and been adopted by a wide range of disciplines e.g., Artificial Intelligence (Minsky, 1975) and public policy analysis (Rein and Schön, 1996). Though originating from other fields (sociology and psychology), the concept of frames has a relatively long history in IR as well. When normative approaches to IR began to flourish in the post-Cold War era, constructivist, Marxist, and feminist IR perspectives explicitly acknowledged the role of civil society in the political arena (Davies and Peña, 2019). For example, Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) discussed the importance of norm entrepreneurs in calling attention to issues which may have been overlooked otherwise e.g., the climate. Moreover, constructing frames has found to be a crucial step in said norm entrepreneur’s political strategy, as when the framing is successful the message will gain a higher level of resonance with the broader public, creating a new way of approaching an issue

(Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998). Here we can draw parallels to Greta who can be seen as a norm entrepreneur.

Nevertheless, Benford and Snow’s work (1988; 1992; 2000) secured the theoretical understanding of framing on social movements into a conceptual tool for empirical analysis (Snow et al., 2019: 394). Derived from Goffman’s work, Benford and Snow built upon the concept of frames, with the main focus on the relationship between framing and collective action. On this basis the most recent and refined version (2000) of their theory is taken as the perspective in the analysis. Their theory is what will be explained in the next section, and also will be tested further in the analysis.

3.2 Operational Theory: Benford and Snow

Social movements are increasingly recognised as significant features of contemporary world politics, and as such a functional theory is needed to dissect the movement and pull-out new findings. Benford and Snow (2000) propose a way of achieving this in their Frame theory, which is the focus of this portion. As the choice of the theory has been validated above, this part expands on the aspects of the theory which will be utilised to analyse Greta Thunberg’s speeches.

In Frame Theory, Benford and Snow (2000) have aimed to show how social movements utilise framing to mobilise action. More specifically, they illustrate the framing perspective as fundamental to understanding the course of social movements, alongside resource mobilisation and political opportunity processes. Ultimately, framing is a form of meaning construction, where the movements actors are the signifying agents shaping reality. This is seen as an active process which often challenges the existing interpretations, and if successful leads to mobilisation for the cause. The function of frames is thereby to organise and guide action, the products of which are labelled as the collective action frames. Within the paradigm Benford and Snow defined collective action frames as “action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a social movement organization” (ibid: 614). Benford and Snow criticise the previous theories and models as having a restrictive nature which overlooks the constructivist aspects in framing of a movement. To further distinguish their approach from that of studies in psychological schemas, they state “collective action frames are not merely aggregations of individual attitudes and perceptions but also the

outcome of negotiating shared meaning” (ibid: 614). Their theory incorporates the intentional action frames by actors to conform consensus for mobilisation. The framework is grounded in these definitions, and goes on to identify three core framing tasks; diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framing, which will be used in the analysis and are defined next.

Diagnostic frames identify the problem and its underlying causes, attributing said problem to an entity by caseating the blame and responsibility to it. The frame

problematises the current state of affairs, redefining it in terms of injustice. Within this frame the need for change is emphasised. Additionally, it points to an us vs. them mentality by identifying the victims and those in the wrong, associating “us” as good and “them” to evil (ibid: 616).

Prognostic frames suggest a solution to the diagnostic problem. This frame attempts to put forward a plan of action, or strategy for reaching the movement’s goal. Often also refuting the opponent’s pre-existing solutions, labelling them as unsatisfactory. This is also when facts or evidence come into play, to provide rationale for the proposed solution (ibid: 617).

Motivational frames are those which provide the “why” and encourage people to act, to become part of the larger collective action. In essence, this frame provides compelling arguments to join the social movement and become engaged participants. This is where emotional, moral pleas enter the dimension, these can be communicated through e.g., connecting the message to shared everyday experiences and how (non)action will impact it. Attaching a level of urgency and a now-rather-than-later mentality to the mobilisation (ibid).

Collective action frames possess a primary function of grasping mobilisation, in terms of activating the movement adherents to demobilise the adversary (Snow et al. 2019).

Essentially frame theory places ideology within their analytical structure. The active process of shaping and structuring these ideas produces a meaningful movement which appeals to the participants. Within this paradigm the success of a social movement is measured by the degree of participant mobilisation it resulted in. The framing process is seen as giving rise to collective action frames which condense the problems at hand with the goal of mobilising supporters. This examination adapts the Benford and Snow (2000) framework, to study how Greta Thunberg’s discourse furthers the climate movement’s ideology and mobilisation strategy. To guide the analysis, the framing tasks of diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational have been operationalised with four indicators (see table 1), which will be used to test their applicability.

Table 1: Overview of Benford and Snow (2000)

4. METHODS

This section clarifies the application of the theory and method, as well as explains the chosen material. In addition, the section concludes with methodical considerations in terms of strengths and weaknesses. Since climate change does not only possess its physical nature, but also exists as a social artifact materialised through created discursive meaning (Vulpe, 2020), how this meaning is created and the effects of such are what is

COLLECTIVE ACTION FRAME OPERATIONALISED AS

DIAGNOSTIC → identifying the problem

→ assigning responsibility

→ identifying the victim(s)

→ aspects of us vs. them mentality

PROGNOSTIC → new solutions to the problem

→ refuting the opposition’s solution

→ use of evidence i.e., facts and statistics

→ creating strategy for the movement

MOTIVATIONAL → communicating the reasons to act and presenting the

repercussions of inaction

→ encouraging people to act

→ attaching urgency to the problem

→ expressing emotions e.g., fear or conceptions of right and wrong

under analysis. Collective action frames (Benford and Snow, 2000) will be used in relation to social movements to indicate how the framing process has enabled mobilisation. More specifically, the social movement under examination being that spearheaded by Greta Thunberg – Fridays for Future, which is studied though her speeches. The method is qualitative and will produce qualitative data. Moreover, the framework provided by Benford and Snow will be tested through a discourse analysis (DA).

4.1 The Material: Collection and Relevance

The materials chosen for this study are speeches by Greta Thunberg. This type of material was chosen as framing is actor-centric, specifically within social movements where the leaders are seen as representative agents in the meaning construction (Benford and Snow, 2000: 613). Here, Greta Thunberg in seen as a key actor and leader of the recent developments within environmental activism, thus material outside of her framing is not necessary for the scope. Moreover, as has been touched upon previously, Greta is a positive force in the climate movement. She has been awarded many titles and prizes for her activism, such as TIME Magazine’s person of the year and the Right Livelihood Award, received invitations to high profile conferences, and mobilised millions of people (Alter et al., 2019). Additionally, the regime fragmentation of GEG, as discovered in the literature review, has helped Greta rise as a powerful actor.

The speeches were retrieved from the movement Fridays for Future official homepage, where they have a whole section labelled “activist speeches” (Fridays for Future, 2021).

The selection of the material was narrowed down to those which were published on the homepage, as it can be assumed the movement would want to highlight the most influential, well known speeches. The speeches were thus strategically chosen on the basis of their popularity. Additionally, as Greta has spoken on behalf of many organisations focusing on Fridays for Future helps to narrow down the mobilisation potential of her discourse to one entity. The time frame is from 2018 to 2019 as this is when Greta was most active, for two reasons. Firstly, she has since then returned to school after a gap year during which she focused on her activism (BBC, 2020), and secondly the COVID-19 pandemic somewhat halted the movement as many of the in- person gatherings were cancelled (Buettner, 2020). How many speeches to include was

carefully considered, landing on five. This is seen as appropriate as this number is not too reductionist and will provide an adequate amount of data and context. Furthermore, due to space constraints the inclusion of additional material is not plausible. Each speech has been labelled speech 1-5, in accordance with their date of delivery (oldest to newest) to circumvent confusion in the following sections. On top of this the date, place, and duration are given for added contextual clarity (see table 2).

Table 2: Overview of Materials

ALLOCATED SPEECH NUMBER

TITLE OF SPEECH DATE AND PLACE SPEECH DURATION

(MINUTES, SECONDS)

SPEECH 1 COP 24 Speech 12 December 2018

COP 24, Katowice

3:36

SPEECH 2 Our House is on Fire 25 January 2019

World Economic Forum, Davos

6:03

SPEECH 3 EU Parliament

Speech 16 April 2019

EU parliament, Strasbourg

13:15

SPEECH 4 How Dare You 23 September 2019

UN Climate Summit, New York

4:34

SPEECH 5 COP 25 Speech 11 December 2019

COP 25, Madrid

11:55

4.2 Analytical Model

As stated above, Benford and Snow’s framework on collective action framing will be the main basis of the analysis. Their framework highlights the significance of framing in the process toward mobilisation which will aid in answering the research question, thus, the choice is justified. It is also worth noting that their perspective has a long-standing role

within the field as it has proven to be analytically prosperous (Lindekilde, 2014: 198).

This study narrows in on the diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational frames presented by Benford and Snow (2000), to provide deeper insight into the question under study. In addition, the study uses DA methodology to identify the normative and symbolic components which provide meaning to Greta Thunberg’s speeches and conjointly the larger GEG regime. The chosen materials will be processed in the following manner.

Discourse present in the speeches act as the unit of analysis in how the environmental emergency is constructed and presented to the public. The three core collective action frames (Benford and Snow, 2000) will be used as indicators for the DA, to uncover the socio-political issues present in the regime and what motivates mobilisation. The study takes the stance that social movement leaders through their discourse help shape and redirect the efforts that are needed to combat climate change. The DA will be applied to the transcripts of the speeches, as opposed to the spoken word. Additionally, a constructivist perspective will be applied to aid in extracting the relevant aspects. As constructivist scholars are often interested in the manner in which ideational, immaterial factors can shape action in the political arena (Finnemore and Sikkink, 2001). As much of IR research on normative aspects takes place in a constructivist framework, this tradition is suitable for the thesis. Additionally, as DA is largely constructivist much like the collective action frames as well, this further steeps the study’s approach as constructivist.

Moreover, DA is a powerful tool for tracing how linguistic devices translate into social action, configuring the way in which we conceive environmental problems. Bringing the discursive aspects into the space of critical engagement (Halperin and Heath, 2017: 336).

The aim of DA is similar to the main aim of this study: to reveal the reasons for acting. In DA, for the reasons to be unmasked we must first understand the meaning people attach to their political behaviour. Ultimately, language is seen as a medium oriented toward action, this is to say that speech is not merely used for the act of producing words but also to do something (ibid: 337). Hence, DA will be paired with the frames in the analysis section to understand the mobilising effect Greta Thunberg has achieved through her activism.

4.3 Considering the Methodological Limitations

This subsection maps out the possible critiques to the research design, along with how they have been responded to. First, consisting of frames, discourse analysis, and the qualitative constructivist approach, this study does come with a high level of interpretivism. It can be difficult to apply strict levels of rigour to the research of this nature. DA specifically, has been criticised for lacking methodological clarity and being too abstract (Bryman, 2012:557). Regardless, the method’s applicability to uncovering deeper meaning of the context and constitutions of the social world, makes it appropriate.

The design does not deviate from what is commonplace for normative studies. Therefore, this critique has been considered and disregarded, since the aim of the research validates the design.

On generalisability, the methods do lack as Greta Thunberg’s framing cannot be applied to all movements. Nonetheless, a relatively low score on external validity does not outweigh the knowledge we can gain from focusing on the specific. The motivations for the choice of Greta have been discussed in the above sections, in essence she plays a major part in the movement against climate change and can thus provide us with relevant insights. Additionally, the actor specific nature of frame theory further justifies this.

Moreover, if one took the same materials and operationalised concepts they would likely arrive at similar conclusions, indicating reliability. In terms of ethical issues, none have been detected. The methods are compatible with the aim of the study, which is to map out how Greta Thunberg mobilises people in favour of the climate movement through testing frame theory.

5. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

This chapter is where the analysis is conducted, and the results of the study are presented. The analysis follows the model established in the previous sections, here we look at the data it produced. The purpose is to test the applicability of the three collective action frames presented by Benford and Snow (2000) on the movement by analysing the selected speeches of Greta Thunberg for their mobilising potential. The observations of this section will later be interpreted further in the discussion chapter. For a clear structure the analysis has been split into subsections, in accordance with the indicators

of: diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational frames. The findings utilise relevant quotes and demonstrate how discourse analysis was applied to the material. Additionally, recurring points have been extracted as subthemes and the key aspects are presented in a summary figure, as a part of the conclusion for this section.

5.1 Diagnostic Frames - What is the Problem?

The first part of the analysis looks for diagnostic framing in Greta Thunberg’s speeches.

Diagnostic framing, which identifies the problem, was found to be present in all of the studied material. Across the speeches it becomes abundantly clear that Greta Thunberg has informed opinions on what the issue is, who created it, and who the victims are. The main issue being, of course, climate change. Greta goes on further to identify inaction, empty words, and false promises as a large part of the problem. She attributes the blame to a couple different entities - the adults/older generation, rich countries, media, politicians, and neoliberal systems. The victims are identified really as all life on earth, however she does emphasise a further victimisation of the young generations. The analysis is structured as working down from the system level criticism to the individual level.

A central aspect of her problem identification rests on ecological blindness, and the unwillingness to take concrete action against climate change. She refers multiple times to the Paris Agreement and keeping global warming below the 1.5°C marker. Declaring that with the way things are going now, the goal will not be reached. Furthermore, Greta criticises the empty words or greenwashing in current affairs stating:

“How dare you, you have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words” (speech 4).

“I believe that the biggest danger is not our inaction. The real danger is when companies and politicians are making it look like real action is happening, when in fact almost nothing is being done, apart from clever accounting and creative PR.” (speech 3).

A problematisation of the current political systems is evidently framed throughout her speeches. It is clear that she believes everything is backwards when the children have to stand up and take on the burden of combatting climate change. Systematic critique is abundant in Greta's prognostic framing, "unless we recognize the overall failures of our

current systems, we probably don’t stand a chance" (speech 2). Greta criticises economic structures and systems, ascribing blame to capitalism multiple times in the studied material. It is clear she is against a world run for profit, pointing out "It seems that money and growth are our only main concerns" (speech 2). Additionally, she recognises the inequalities fuelled by such neoliberal systems, where only a small percentage of the world population profits while the rest suffer. Fundamentally she attributes the onus to Western counties. To demonstrate, the below quotes are highlighted.

"It is the sufferings of the many which pay for the luxuries of the few." (speech 1)

“Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money. Our biosphere is being sacrificed so that rich people in countries like mine can live in luxury.” (speech 1)

“At places like Davos people like to tell success stories, but their financial success has come with an unthinkable price tag.” (speech 2)

Moreover, she blames world leaders and politicians for having their priorities twisted.

Greta frames environmental issues as the number one emergency humanity is facing now, and points to how it's wrong to "hold 3 emergency Brexit summits and no emergency summit regarding the breakdown of the climate" (speech 3). This climate inaction framing is further stretched to also encompass the media as culprits. She does not name any specific outlets, but rather treats media as one large entity, though we can assume she is referring to what reaches the mainstream audience. Nevertheless, Greta accuses the media of consciously staying silent on the problems at hand, having "failed to create broad public awareness" (speech 2). In her how dare you speech, Greta further personifies the "you" as the discussed agents, with the addition of adults and the older generations. Within this theme voters and parents are also implicated. As she wishes adults voted for more eco-friendly parties to office and parents protected their children’s future. The articulation of blame speaks to the creation of us vs them framing. Regarding the us, Greta Thunberg constructs the victims of climate change to primarily be her generation/younger generations, labelling them as “we who have to live with the consequences” (speech 4) and “we who cannot vote” (speech 3). This is observed multiple times in her words though the prognostic frames which create a generational divide.

Blame on adults and voters comes full circle where she does blame both, it is also clear a

larger portion of the blame is placed on the politicians and media who have not adequately communicated the seriousness of climate change.

Greta refers to herself multiple times as someone who is ignored and blames all of the above named actors. Not only for ignoring her or others who speak up, but also for ignoring the science and tangible consequences. Climate change is framed as problem created by people which now threatens our existence. Greta uses inclusive language referring to the earth as "our house" (speeches 2,3,5), and refers to people as "homo sapiens" (speech 2) removing all labels and uniting everyone into a collective. Greta states that "we have failed" (speech 2), hence she does not fully transfer responsibility to others. While her main messages are wide reaching, this should not be taken to mean that everyone is equally responsible and liable for the issues.

The diagnostic frame has identified the central problem as inaction regarding climate change. Said inaction is further attributed to greenwashing and the general lack of climate awareness. Greta blames unequal systems, decisionmakers, and the media for said problems. She additionally groups adults, voters, and older generations into the culprits, it is within this generational conflict an us vs. them mentality is also present. The victims were primarily identified as the youth as well as coming generations who will have to live on a depleted planet. Therefore, the findings of this frame have illuminated significant problem areas in the climate arena.

5.2 Prognostic Frames - What is the Solution?

Next the analysis turns to the prognostic frames, those which propose new solutions and refute the opposition, to create a strategy for the movement. Through studying the materials these frames were found to evident in Greta Thunberg’s speeches. The framings suggest system reform, change on the individual and collective level. While it may be that some of the prognostic themes simultaneously advocate for multiple things or relatively abstract concepts of the system, concrete findings can be drawn out of the material.

Though Greta does not provide a step-by-step guide to what needs to be done, she remains clear on the direction in which we need to go to prevent further environmental damage.

Since the problem was identified as inaction and a nonchalant approach to climate change, Greta’s primary suggestion is an attitude shift. This can be seen though a very prominent theme Greta promotes which is to listen to the science and take it seriously.

She calls on those identified through the diagnostic frame to consider what climate scientists are saying and model their behaviour accordingly. She grounds her positions on science and the IPCC reports, with the aim of making her stances stronger. Ultimately, she believes in the scientific predictions of how the world will look if inaction continues, and suggests others do the same. This is demonstrated in speech 3 where Greta states

"it’s okay if you refuse to listen to me. I am after all just a 16-year-old schoolgirl from Sweden. But you cannot ignore the scientists. Or the science". Essentially, Greta herself is not the one coming up with new solutions to climate change, instead she wishes for the available suggestions from scientists to translate into reality. She stresses the importance of staying on course with the Paris agreement and the 1.5°C limit, which is not happening currently. Staying on what is available, she refutes the oppositions technology-based solution as something which is unavailable and not feasible. This refers to how "Most models assume that future generations will somehow be able to suck hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 out of the air with technologies that do not exist in the scale required and maybe never will" (speech 5).

As identified in the diagnostic frames Greta believes current systems are insufficient and concludes that "if solutions within the system are so impossible to find, maybe we should change the system itself" (speech 1). She promotes restructuring political, economic, and social systems stating, "Everyone and everything has to change" (speech 3). When addressing the political aspects Greta proposes to "make the best available science the heart of politics and democracy" (speech 3). Additionally, she calls for the changes to happen quickly, as we are running out of time and “Zero [emissions] in 2050 means nothing" (speech 5), because by then it will be too late. She negates the current level of climate action and again refutes their solutions as "bad ideas" (speech 1). The right idea being uniting behind the science and taking action. Greta makes clear that drastic cuts to GHG emission need to take place and advocates for a sooner target to reach carbon neutrality.

She further exemplifies how "The main solution is so simple that even a small child can understand it" (speech 2). Additionally, Greta's proposed solutions take into account equity, with fair allocation of resources and balanced scales.

“Richer countries need to do their fair share and get down to real zero emissions much faster and then help poorer countries do the same, so people in less fortunate parts of the world can raise their living standards” (speech 5).

Hence, Greta is not only advocating for the physical features of climate change, but additionally climate justice. As aspect, which surfaces in Greta’s discourse many a time, constructing the frame of injustice.

This suggestion stretches beyond the political landscape to include societal change. She pleads for people to "please wake up and make the required changes possible" (speech 3). Greta obviously believes in the power of the collective, contending that "every great change throughout history has come from the people" (speech 5). Greta's prognostic frames eliminate the conception that stopping climate change is out of the hands of the ordinary citizen. The actual call to arms aspects of this will be discussed below in the section for motivational frames. Nevertheless, urging others to join her movement is also a prognostic frame as the collective action is seen as a solution to the current ignoration of the climate emergency. She believes pressure from the people is a viable way to create change at the other planes as well. Moreover, she urges everyone to recognise their own responsibility and stop waiting for things to improve on their own. Making

"unprecedented changes in all aspects of society" (speech 2) is taken as a prognostic frame. While remaining relatively abstract, Greta does go on to also provide examples, such as a 50% reduction of CO2 emissions at the individual level.

Another solution Greta presents though her prognostic frames is to communicate clearly.

In all of the studied material Greta criticises the current portrayal of the climate crisis as reductionist. She points out how the opposition has labelled her as alarmist for using direct language to communicate facts. However, this has not stopped her approach as she asserts "now is not the time for speaking politely" (speech 2). She often references how facing the realities of environmental degradation makes people uncomfortable and proposes that the only way to make the feeling go away is by making the situation better.

To demonstrate consider these two quotes, "we must speak out in clear language, no

matter how uncomfortable and unprofitable that may be" (speech 2), and "There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is"

(speech 4). What is more she calls for politicians to stop being "scared of being unpopular" (speech 1). The ultimate goal of truthful presentation being for the drastic reality to reach the public, as Greta stresses how unaware of the problem the masses remain. Hence, a part of the solution is spreading awareness.

Concludingly, Greta frames the oppositions proposals as lacking potential, expressing

"How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just business as usual and some technical solutions?" (speech 4). Whilst she positions her answers to the problem within pre-existing paradigms such as science and the Paris Agreement, her “new” suggestion is that these need to be taken seriously as they currently are not. Additionally, she asserts taking climate action at all levels is the cornerstone to curbing irreversible climate change. The how to achieve the goal has been discussed in this section, the why will be considered next.

5.3 Motivational Frames - Why does it Matter?

The above examined frames have identified the problem and possible proposals to fix it.

The motivational frame, under analysis here, identifies the reasons to take climate action.

Hence, the following section uncovers the motivators proposed in the speeches under study. Greta Thunberg's motivators primarily use emotion as well as the inevitable disaster which follows inaction. She also attaches urgency to the problem and points to the significance of the choices being made now - in times of crisis.

There is a sense of duty present in the mobilising appeals. Greta frames herself as someone who has internalised their responsibility and calls for others to do the same.

Responsibility is used to promote action against climate change by partaking in the movement. Furthermore, Greta infers that action is the moral thing to do, while inaction is immoral. Everyone who chooses inaction will be held accountable in the future, even if they have not been until now. Thus, the motivational frame includes an obligation to act, where doing so is the only option.

While the call to action includes those responsible for the problem identified in the prognostic frames, the main call to arms is largely directed at the people. It seems that Greta has lost faith in transformation coming from higher up and views grassroots action as the only hope, which is illustrated in the following excerpt.

"In just three weeks, we will enter a new decade, a decade that will define our future. Right now we are desperate for any sign of hope. Well, I’m telling you, there is hope. I have seen it, but it does not come from the governments or corporations. It comes from the people. The people who have been unaware, but are now starting to wake up. And once we become aware, we change. People can change. People are ready for change" (speech 5).

Correspondingly, taking action is presented as an either-or scenario with no room for middle ground. The seriousness of the situation is illustrated through doomsday-esque context setting, where Greta wishes to communicate what will happen if inaction continues. As "Either we choose to go on as a civilization or we don’t. That is as black or white as it gets. There are no grey areas when it comes to survival" (speech 2). Greta also uses negative emotional responses to her favour, mostly fear and panic. The purpose of this framing is not merely to scare people, but additionally is used to motivate action. She states "I want you to panic. I want you to act as if your house was on fire" (speech 3). The metaphor of a house on fire resurfaces multiple times in her speeches, painting a powerful picture in laymen’s terms. Hence, part of Greta's motivational framing is encouraging people to act by conveying the gravity of anthropogenic climate change. As identified in the prognostic findings, she frames listening to the science as a solution, this is also used as a motivator as she asks "please tell me, how do you react to these numbers without feeling at least some level of panic? How do you respond to the fact that basically nothing is being done about this without feeling the slightest bit of anger?" (speech 5).

Additionally, her appeals to ignite an emotional response incorporate the aspect of shame to stagnant inaction. This is clearly demonstrated in speech 4, how dare you, where this phrase is repeated a multitude of times. This attaches a strong sense of shame to current behaviours which acts as a motivator, as it can be presumed that taking action now would lift some of said shame. What is more, parents are framed as having failed and betrayed their children, where the protecting one's children is an additional motivator. The lens of right and wrong is applied here as well, as Greta contends it is a basic moral baseline for

parents to take care of their children and ensure their future on a healthy planet, illuminated by these quotes:

"The year 2078, I will celebrate my 75th birthday. If I have children maybe they will spend that day with me. Maybe they will ask me about you. Maybe they will ask why you didn’t do anything while there still was time to act. You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes." (speech 1).

"You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And If you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this." (speech 4).

Her appeals hence create generational conflict, yet the calls to arms both the older generation and the younger generation. The elder generation must act to redeem themselves, while the youth to fight for their own future. Howbeit, positive emotional responses are also utilised in the speeches. Greta refers for example to courage, determination, and hope, furthering the conception that joining the movement is the moral thing to do. Positive attributes related to becoming an advocate for the climate help mobilisation pleas resonate with the audience. Additionally, Greta empowers the people and believes "you are never too small to make a difference" (speech 1), further calling on those who may feel insignificant in the grand scheme of things to also stand up. She embodies and presents a united we are strong ideology in her framing of mobilisation.

Furthermore, she connects to the shared human experience though these lenses. Greta frames taking action as a moral duty, one which has been passed on from those responsible for it to include everyone testifying how “if a few children can get headlines all over the world just by not going to school, then imagine what we could all do together if we really wanted to” (speech 1).

Furthermore, the motivational frames encourage people to demand reform now or never, as soon it will be too late. This urgency aspect functions as a wakeup call, urging others to join the movement, primarily constructed by referring to the ongoing and future effects of climate change as action critical. Time is used as a motivator however Greta does not want for all hope to be lost, explicitly stating how “it is not too late to act” (speech 3).

Nevertheless, it is abundantly apparent how changes need to start actualising now and not be procrastinated on.

To recap, the motivational frame has unearthed findings regarding why people should mobilise to combat climate change. Greta’s discourse attaches morality to joining the movement, where continued inaction is seen as unacceptable. To achieve this, negative, undesirable attributes are ascribed to those who choose to remain ignorant in their inaction. This is prominent in the shame and sense of failure which are linked to the culprits to ignite feelings of panic and urgency. Now that all three collective action frames have been studied the next and final section of the analysis links the findings together.

5.4 Summary of Findings

Before we move on to the discussion, the fundamental findings will first be summarised.

Through the diagnostic frame, the problem was exposed as the lack of action and ignoration of the climate crisis, with systems, decisionmakers, media, and adults as the principal culprits. The proposed solutions discovered through the prognostic frame included system reform, listening to the experts i.e., scientists, realigning policy with the Paris agreement, spreading awareness, and joining the movement. The motivators pull at the heartstrings of the culprits, associating climate action to a moral duty, and rest additionally on the circumstance that life cannot go on if the planet is destroyed. To further process the results, they were gathered into a figure to demonstrate their relationship to each other, with the culprit linked to the applicable solution and reason to act. While the collective action frames do share an overlap and are often advocated for simultaneously, the figure acts as a simplification of the written findings to clarify for the reader and provide a visual of the key elements from Greta’s discourse.

Figure 1: Summary of key findings

6.DISCUSSION

This chapter links the findings back to previous literature and situates them into GEG.

The purpose of the discussion is to attach meaning to the results of the analysis. The larger problem areas in global environmental governance identified in the literature review shine through in Greta Thunberg's framing of the climate crisis. The findings presented above show that the collective action frames provide insight into what has encouraged others to join the movement and mobilise. Aspects of diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framing can be identified in all of the studied material, leading to the conclusion that Benford and Snow's adapted framework aids in understanding the climate movement. The diagnostic frame identified the problem and pointed the finger at those responsible, prognostic frames advise on solutions, and finally motivational frames directly deal with the call to arms. The frames all work together with the aim of leading to widespread mobilisation. As Greta has a global audience, the three frames illustrate what motivates action and mobilisation worldwide.

Reasons to act on the proposed

solution Proposed solution

Blame attributed The problem to

Inaction regarding climate change

unequal systems system change - reform and reprioritise

ensure climate justice

decisionmakers, politicians

listen to the science

time is running out align with the

Paris agreement

media

spread awareness and

communicate clearly

if people understand they

will change

adults, parents, voters

individual and

collective action it is the moral thing to do

demand change ensure a future on earth

This section is in alignment with the subthemes discovered in the previous section, in order to elaborate on them. The structure of the discussion is as follows: first, the concepts of problematic systems and ecological blindness will be reviewed. Next, Greta will be linked to having a green identity. After this, whether GEG would flourish with a top-down or bottom-up approach is debated, followed by the direction for the future.

Lastly, the section concludes with a summary of the main mobilising components and associates them as either having a positive or negative effect on the movement, as seen through frame theory.

6.1 Problematic Systems

Adding on to Greta's system critique, globalization is considered another culprit in accelerating climate change. While globalization is not explicitly named in the studied material this lens can be found indirectly. External literature is aware of specifically neoliberal globalization’s negative and counteractive effect on the green movement, specifically how the current structure seems to protect the interest of elites over the global majority (Stevenson, 2021: 86). This is what Greta denounces in her speeches as well – how powerful elites belittle climate governance by perpetuating the aspects of neoliberalism which privilege them. Ultimately, climate advocacy is incompatible with current systems.

While Greta calls for large scale systematic shifts, it is noteworthy that she does not assume that the required changes can manifest overnight, stressing the importance of dedication and hard work. She is aware of the complexities which follow restructuring systems and societies to fit the environmental agenda, albeit drastic changes are framed as the only option. This is also why the time sensitive nature of the action is stressed, as implementing large scale transformation is tedious, it must begin as soon as possible. As

“there are no rules to keep the oil in the ground” (speech 4), Greta speaks to a lack of legislation in GEG. She calls for stricter environmental regulation to protect our future living conditions, as a tipping point is near, after which climate stability will be unreachable. Additionally, her diagnostic framing encapsulates others e.g., adults and politicians, into the system critique as well, since it cannot change itself but rather requires action to arise from the agents within. An assessment which is shared by many of the scholars on the topic (e.g., Buettner, 2020).