What kind of issue is climate change really?

(1)

- A qualitative study on how Argentina, Brazil and Mexico describe the

climate change issue in their NDCs

Vilma Westberg

Bachelor’s thesis in Development studies, 15 hp, Spring 2021 Department of Government, Uppsala University

(2)

Abstract

At this time, we know that climate change is a threat to all countries on earth and that

governments are expected to take on a lot of responsibility in solving the issue. We know that framing is a tool that is frequently used by actors who want to communicate a message. What we do not know enough about is how governments make use of framing in their

communication on climate change, to for example foster public engagement. This paper has answered this question by looking deeper into how three different governments describe the climate change issue with an analysis of framings based on their Nationally Determined Contributions. Through a qualitative content analysis of the documents, it was found that all three cases describe the climate change issue in terms of responsibility and economic consequences. Additional aspects of climate change that the countries focus on differ

(3)

1. Introduction

Never before has climate change been seen as more threatening than it is today, and never before has action on climate change been more needed. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that climate change comes with enormous risks, such as extreme weather conditions and unbalanced ecosystems. Even access to food and water is under threat by climate change. Scientific evidence shows that the time to tackle climate change is now. The IPCC notes that some regions will be more affected by the impacts of climate change, but it is clear that all countries will be affected in one way or another (IPCC, 2018:177-180). Seldom before, has climate change been a more topical issue than it is today. Youths take part in climate strikes like Fridays for future, as a call for more action (Fridays for future, 2021), and top leaders are trying to find a solution to this global issue (Hirst, 2020).

This study will look into how the governments in three different countries; Argentina, Brazil and Mexico communicate on climate change. This will be done through a qualitative content analysis of the countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which are an

important component of the latest global agreement on climate change, the Paris Agreement (UN, n.d.). The first thing that the study will do is to look into how the cases describe the climate change issue through the lens of Framing theory. The second thing that the study will do is to compare the cases to each other, to see if they use similar or different frames to describe the climate change issue. To identify and understand what frames the countries use, a coding scheme is used. The first sections of the paper go deeper into why this study is needed and explain how it will be done. After that, the independent study will be presented and the findings will be discussed before the paper is concluded.

(5)

connect to it (Schäfer and O’Neill, 2017:2). Stakeholders, both with and without economic interests, have also been researched with the motive that these actors might have an interest in portraying climate change in a certain way to for example favor their business interests. In comparison with media and stakeholders, there have been few studies done on how political decision makers make use of framing, and what parts of the issue they choose to focus on when communicating on climate change (Schäfer and O’Neill, 2017:12ff).

Studies on political decision makers, or governments, tend to focus instead on, for example, assessing the work that governments do on climate change. An example includes work by Michel den Elzen et al (2019), who aim to assess whether the G20 economies will reach the goals they have set out in terms of limiting their emissions, or not. I argue that the power that governments have in affecting the public engagement through framing have been overlooked. My research seeks to contribute to this gap in previous research by looking at how three separate governments describe the climate change issue with help from Framing theory. Additionally, I argue that this research is also of importance to society, since governments play a central role in the global effort to fight climate change. Consequently, they are also central in increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change. This becomes especially clear in the Paris Agreement, which will be examined in the background section.

1.1 Background

Historically, there have been many discussions and negotiations on climate change and several international agreements have been signed to create a collective action on climate change (Hirst, 2020). In 2015, an important step in the fight against climate change was taken. A global agreement was signed in Paris by 196 parties, which includes almost all countries in the world. The overall purpose of the agreement is to tackle climate change and the main goal is to limit the global average temperature increase to not more than 2 degrees celsius (UN, n.d.). The agreement does also involve a lot of flexibility. It leaves each

(6)

Some scholars have criticized the agreement, and one of these is Oran Young (2016). Young shows concern over whether the agreement really will be successful in achieving its goals, and points out that one reason for this low belief in the agreement is the NDCs. The plans that each country had formulated in their NDCs in the run up for the Paris agreement would not be enough for achieving the goals, even if these were pursued in an exact manner, which shows how much the success of the agreement relies on rising ambitions by each country (Young, 2016:124f). This thesis focuses on the NDCs because of their central role in the Paris Agreement’s success. Additionally, they constitute good data for comparisons between

countries, since they are provided by all countries that have signed the Paris Agreement. They give each country a chance to express their opinions on climate change and how it should be handled. This is good considering that this study focuses on the climate change issue and how it is described on a state level.

1.2 Aim and research question

This study has two aims. The first aim is to describe how the governments in three seperate countries describe the climate change issue. The second aim is to compare the cases with each other and identify differences or similarities. In order to fulfill these aims, this thesis will answer the following research questions:

- How do Argentina, Brazil and Mexico's governments describe the climate change issue in their NDCs?

- How are the cases similar or different to each other in terms of how they describe the climate change issue?

Both of these research questions are descriptive. Focus lies in describing how the climate change issue is being described in three separate cases, and to discuss how they are similar or different to each other. A conscious choice has been made to delineate the study, so that it only focuses on describing, and does not look for explanations to why the climate change issue is being described in a certain way. This could be something for future research to look at. This study should be seen as a first step to better understanding the drivers of variation in how the climate change issue is described with help from framing. Because as Peter

(7)

These research questions are important in order to contribute to a part of the research on framing that has oftentimes been overlooked. In the article The Paris Agreement on climate

change: behind closed doors, Radoslav Dimitrov (2016) recognizes that countries have

different ways of seeing the climate change issue. There also exists different views on what kind of solution is needed, and who should be responsible for it. The author argues that these are all factors to why it has taken so long to reach a global agreement on climate change such as the Paris Agreement (Dimitrov, 2016). Dimitrov’s study illustrates how there exists

different views on climate change. This study is important to get a deeper understanding of what these different views are.

Yeheng Pan et al (2019) have also looked into the negotiations in the uprun of the Paris Agreement, but with a focus on how media in different countries framed the debate. Frame analysis has even been done on social media, and how climate change is portrayed and talked about there by regular users (Jang and Hart, 2015:11). Even though both regular news media and social media can be thought of as reflecting the ongoing debates, I argue that yet another perspective will be brought to the research field through looking also at how governments themselves portray climate change in their official documents. In similarity with many previous studies, this study aims to achieve the research aims through frame analysis. This, because of the idea that all countries want to communicate something in their NDCs, and they can thus be thought to use frames (Matthes, 2012:249). Through working backwards, by trying to identify frames in the texts, we can say something about how the cases describe the climate change issue.

2. Previous research

As previously mentioned, climate change is often seen as a global problem and top leaders have fought hard to come up with global solutions. Elinor Ostrom, a prominent researcher within the field of collective action on climate change, has made attempts to diversify this perception. The author argues that climate change requires not just action on the global level, but rather on all levels of society (Ostrom, 2010:550). Ostrom introduces a polycentric

(8)

seen in global efforts such as the Paris Agreement, where a lot of responsibility and trust is put on the governments. The important message from Ostrom’s research is that not one actor can solve the climate change issue alone. As previously mentioned, one way of fostering public engagement is through framing.

A great amount of studies have been completed on how the media portray climate change. What has motivated these studies has been the idea that the media constitutes the main source for scientific information for the public (Badullovich et al, 2020:2). Astrid Dirikx and Dave Gelders argue that the media has a lot of power when it comes to influencing the public and one way in which this is done is by framing the issue in certain ways (2010:732). According to Schäfer and O’Neill, not only news media has been an object for frame analysis, but rather a variety of different actors, as will be illustrated later. However, when it comes to how political decision-makers and institutions make use of framing to portray the climate change issue, the research is not as extensive as it is on for example news media framing. A possible explanation that the authors see is that the framing approach has not been used to the same extent within political science (Schäfer and O’Neill, 2017:14). This study aims to make a contribution to this missing part of the field through doing an analysis on how governments make use of frames to describe the climate change issue. Schäfer and O’Neil also recognize that most studies on framing focus on Australia, Western Europe or North America even though climate change is a highly global problem (2017:23). Here, the study will also make a contribution by focusing on countries in Central and South America.

(9)

focus on environmental issues (Schäfer and O’Neill, 2017:12). Research has also shown interest in stakeholders that have more of an economic interest. These actors involve for example companies and trade unions. Researchers in these studies often depart from the idea that these stakeholders may have an interest in framing climate change in a way that is good for their economic interests (Schäfer and O’Neill, 2017:13).

It is clear that more attention needs to be brought to how frames are used on a state level. Jörg Matthes is one of the authors that intends to widen the perspective on framing and argues that frames are used by all actors that want to communicate a message and affect peoples’

opinions, such as political actors (Matthes, 2012:249). In the article, Matthes shows that the framing process consists of different components that are interconnected with and affect each other. These components are the political elites, the news media and the public. By arguing that the political elites affect the news media, and the news media affects the public (Matthes, 2012:250), the author shows that both political actors and the media play a role in the framing process and in forming the public opinion (Matthes, 2012:254).

Apart from how an issue is framed, there are also other factors that are recognized to have an effect on how an issue is perceived by the public. One example is how frequently a frame is used on a certain agenda (Matthes, 2012:250). An agenda is defined by John Kingdon as “the

list of subjects or problems to which governmental officials, and people outside of

government closely associated with those officials, are paying some serious attention at any given time” (Kingdon, 2013:3). Sarah Pralle refers to three different agendas; the public

agenda, the governmental agenda and the decision agenda. Firstly, the public agenda means the issues that the people of a country find the most important. Secondly, the governmental agenda refers to those issues that are brought up for debate in different parts of the

government, whereas the third, the decision agenda constitutes those issues that the government is actually making decisions on. Even though they are referred to as separate agendas, the author argues that all of them interact with each other. While climate change can be argued to have become more relevant over the past few years, Pralle claims that climate change has been on both national and international agendas for three decades now (Pralle, 2009:781f).

Kingdon discusses the factors that result in an issue ending up on the agenda in the book

(10)

the participants and the process. Participants refer to the actors that take part in the agenda-setting, meanwhile the process refers to problems, policies and politics (Kingdon, 2013:15f). The author suggests that participants and processes are connected to each other in the way that the participants are involved in the different components of the process. Both participants and processes can contribute to the highlight, as well as the decline of an issue on the agenda (Kingdon, 2013:197). When problems, policies and politics are in place at the same time, the odds that an issue will be discussed on the decision-agenda becomes higher (Kingdon, 2013:201f).

3. Theoretical framework

In this section, the framing theory will be explained. The purpose is to provide an

understanding for the theory that will guide the analysis. The reason why framing theory has been chosen for this study, is because the study departs from the idea that all countries want to communicate something in their NDCs. Going backwards, by trying to identify frames in the texts, can thus help in saying something about how the cases wish to describe the climate change issue. Departing from already established frames will also help in knowing what to look for.

3.1 Framing theory

Framing is a wide concept that is used in many different areas of study, such as for example media and communication and social sciences (NE, n.d.). Holli Semetko and Patti

Valkenburg note that there is not one common definition of framing, however, they argue that multiple of the used definitions share characteristics (2000:94). This can be interpreted as that there is a somewhat common understanding on what is meant by the concept of framing. To be clear on what is meant by framing in this study, the following definition will be used.

“To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described”

(Entman, 1993:52).

(11)

process where for example the media frames an issue. Frame-setting means the phase in which the formulated frames interact with the public. Then it affects the public's knowledge and perceptions, which can have consequences such as changed attitudes (de Vreese,

2005:51f).

There exists a huge number of different frames. Schäfer and O’Neill try to make sense of all these frames by presenting different categories. Firstly, frames can be divided into

formal/stylistic frames and content-oriented frames. The formal/stylistic frames are more oriented towards the format of a text, whereas the content-oriented frames focus more on what is said in a text and the messages (Schäfer and O’Neill, 2017:5f). This study will focus on content-oriented frames. The authors continue to explain that the content-oriented frames can also be divided into two sub-categories, which are generic frames and topical frames. Generic frames, which this study will focus on, refers to frames that can be used in relation to many different topics. The topical frames, on the other hand, are mostly used in relation to one specific issue (Schäfer and O’Neill, 2017:5f). A critique that has been raised within the research field is that the concept of framing is too vague, which have led to a broad spectrum of frames and that studies that do not always relate to, and sometimes contradict each other (Badullovich et al, 2020:2). In order not to contribute more to this confusion, this study aims not to develop another new set of frames. Instead, it will make use of an already established set of frames.

The content-oriented generic frames that will be used in this study are the conflict frame, the economic consequences frame, the human interest frame, the morality frame and the

(12)

3.1.1 The conflict frame

Firstly, the conflict frame refers to that focus is put on a conflict that exists around a certain issue between different actors involved in the debate. As an example, the authors bring up the news that are written in relation to election campaigns. In order to catch the attention of its audience, the news focuses on the conflict that goes on between the different candidates in the uprun for presidential elections (Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000:95). To give an example, the conflict frame could be argued for if focus is put on different views on climate change between different countries or actors within the country.

3.1.2 The human interest frame

Secondly, the human interest frame focuses more on emotional aspects than what the other frames do. Focus lies in trying to induce feelings among the audience, so that they feel that they feel personally affected by an ongoing event or a topical issue. This in turn, will result in interest among people (Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000:95f). The human interest frame is also relevant to this study as climate change is obviously a phenomena that affects people. One could for example think that governments could paint pictures of vulnerable people that are affected by climate change, to induce feelings and foster engagement. One could also imagine it the other way around, for example that focus is put on the employees within the fossil fuel industry that would lose their jobs due to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

3.1.3 The economic consequences frame

Thirdly, the economic consequences frame focuses on the effects of an issue or a specific event that takes place. More specifically, it focuses on the economic consequences that will come from an event or an issue. Focus can be on consequences for a few individuals or a whole country (Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000:96). An example of how the economic consequences frame could be identified in the NDCs is if climate change is pictured as creating economic opportunities or economic losses.

3.1.4 The morality frame

(13)

one can think does not have to keep the same strict distance to subjectivity as professional journalists. This frame might seem similar to the human interest frame, however, my

interpretation is that the human interest frame is more about painting pictures of human fates with the purpose to create feelings in the reader. I argue that the morality frame is more about statements on what is right or wrong in a specific situation.

3.1.5 The responsibility frame

Finally, the responsibility frame refers to framing an issue in terms of responsibility. The focus can lie in who is responsible for the cause of a certain issue, but also for providing a solution. The authors bring up an example in the shape of the US news media, which they argue have played a role in people’s perceptions about responsibility in relation to social problems, due to how they have framed the issue in their news (Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000:96). The responsibility frame could be argued for if focus is put on the responsibilities for the cause and solution to climate change. A risk that can be seen is that the conflict frame and the responsibility frame could be closely related, since responsibility could be ground for conflicts. However, the conflict frame as Semetko and Valkenburg (2000:95) puts it focuses more on actors that are in conflict with each other.

4. Method and Design

Having discussed previous research and the theoretical framework, the paper now turns to discuss the choices that have been made with regards to research design and methods. The study is a qualitative study with a most similar design, where Argentina, Brazil and Mexico constitute the cases. The material that will be used is the countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions, which are part of the Paris Agreement. To take on the material, qualitative content analysis will be used.

4.1 Research design

(14)

of random selection, which would create better possibilities for generalizations (Esaiasson et al, 2017:158). Still, I argue that the information that is needed to answer the research question can not be found just by a quick glance, but requires careful studies and deep understanding that can only be achieved through thick description. As the aims of this study requires a more thorough analysis of the data, a quantitative design falls outside the goals of this paper. Second, the design for this study is the most similar design. According to Esaiasson et al this design means studying a few cases that are similar in as many aspects as possible. This design is commonly used when you want to find an explanation to a phenomenon (Essaiasson et al, 2017:102), but I argue that it is also relevant in this paper which only has descriptive ambitions. Using cases that are similar in many aspects makes the comparison more relevant. Finding that cases that are different in many aspects are also different in the way that they describe the climate change issue would probably not come as a surprise to anyone. However, finding that cases that are similar to each other are different or similar in how they frame the climate change issue could raise new relevant research questions such as for example why. This study is an initial step to better understanding the drivers in variation in framing of the climate change issue. Thus, it makes sense to use a most similar design.

4.2 Case selection

The cases for this study have been selected strategically, to create better possibilities for generalizations (Esaiasson et al, 2017:161). The results from this study could thus also be applied to other cases that share characteristics with the studied cases. The aspects that have been taken into account when selecting countries are level of economic development

(GDP/capita), historical emissions, level of democracy, colonial history or not, and to what extent they have experienced extreme weather events over the past years. Below follows a short description of the selected cases to illustrate how the countries are similar to each other. It would be impossible to find countries that are identical to each other, but I find that these countries are similar on many variables that could have an effect on the dependent variable, how a country describes climate change. This is in line with how Esaiasson et al (2017:102f) reason when explaining how to select cases when using a most similar design.

Argentina

(15)

FN-förbundet, 2014). What Argentina does not have, on the other hand, is a history of high ghg emissions. Compared to the United States, which is pointed out as one of the countries that carries the most responsibility for historical emission (Friedrich and Damassa, 2014), Argentina’s contribution to historical emissions must be seen as low. Whereas the United States emitted 21.111 metric tons of CO2 per capita in the year of 1970, Argentina only emitted 3,465 metric tons of CO2 per capita (World Bank, 2016). When it comes to the level of economic development, Argentina had a GDP/capita of 9,912 USD in 2019 (World Bank, 2019). If we instead take a look at how democratic the country is, it is judged to be a

“mid-range performing democracy” (IDEA, 2021a). Brazil

The second case that has been selected for this study is Brazil. The country has a history of being a colony to European countries, as it belonged to Portugal between the 1500s and 1822 (Svenska FN-förbundet, 2013). The economic development in Brazil, if one departs from the country’s GDP/capita, was 8,717 USD in 2019 (World Bank, 2019). When it comes to the country’s participation in historical CO2 emissions, it must be seen as low as it only appeared to be 0,986 metric tons per capita in the whole year of 1970 (World bank, 2016). In terms of level of democracy, Brazil is classified a “mid-range performing democracy” (IDEA, 2021b). Mexico

The third and last case, which’s NDC will be analyzed in this paper, is Mexico. Even though Mexico is since 1821 its own independent country, it was also colonized by Spain in the 1500s (Svenska FN-förbundet, 2018). When it comes to the level of economic development in the country, Mexico had a GDP/capita of 9,946 USD in 2019 (World Bank, 2019). To get a picture of Mexico’s historical emissions, it did in the year of 1970 emit 2.215 metric tons of CO2 per capita (World bank, 2016). In terms of level of democracy, Mexico is referred to as a “mid-range performing democracy” (IDEA, 2021c).

(16)

events over the past years. So last but not least, they have all suffered approximately the same from extreme weather events according to the global climate change index (Eckstein et al, 2021:15).

4.3 Data

In order to answer the research questions, the countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) will be used as the data. As has been explained in the background section, the NDCs are part of the Paris agreement and are handed in by every country that has signed the

agreement, every fifth year. In the NDCs, the countries lay out their plans on how they will mitigate and adapt to climate change (UN, n.d.). The documents are later published on the UNFCCC’s website and available for everyone to read. Considering that the Paris Agreement was formulated and signed only in 2015, countries have yet only had time to upload one, or maximum two, NDCs (UNFCCC, n.d.). This makes the possibilities for comparing over time limited. On the other hand, the conditions for comparisons between countries are better. The NDCs constitute good data for this paper. First, because they give each country the chance to express their view on what needs to be done within the Paris Agreement. Second, because they are documents that exclusively deal with climate change and climate related issues, which is an advantage considering that climate change is the issue that this study deals with. Third, because they are provided on a country level, which is suitful as this study focuses on governments.

Another option would have been to use other documents on climate change provided by governments, such as for example climate plans or similar. This would probably lead to more available material and possibilities to make even deeper analysis. However, challenges with finding accessible and corresponding documents from similar countries, resulted in the NDCs also having practical advantages. First, they are easy to access since they have already been collected and are available at the same place. Second, they are or have all been translated into English, which helps in avoiding language barriers and creates better conditions for a

(17)

and extensive explanations of the country's plans on climate change mitigation and adaptation (Republic of Argentina, 2016; Brazil, 2020; Mexico, 2020). This affects the available content to analyse. However, I still argue that there is a point in using these NDCs as the data for this study as it is a chance for governments to send out their message on climate change, may it be short or long. Since it is provided by the governments it is not just some speculation, but rather serious statements towards the rest of the international community. By adjusting the efforts spent on each NDC and careful selection of more important parts of the texts, I argue that the different amounts of data have not had an effect on the results.

Second, the NDCs were also published in different years. Whereas Argentina’s was published in 2016, Brazil and Mexico’s were published in 2020 (UNFCCC, n.d.). What this study wants to do is to look at the first NDCs that the countries submitted in order to make a fair

comparison. Both Brazil and Mexico do have NDCs from 2016, but in 2020 updated

submissions of their first NDCs were published (UNFCCC, n.d.). The reason why this study uses the updated submissions instead of the initial documents is because the updated

documents are seen to mostly reflect how the countries describe climate change today. As Argentina has not been keen on providing an updated submission, this paper assumes that they still stand by what they wrote in 2016. Argentina has also, as the only country among these three, submitted their second NDC (UNFCCC, n.d.). With regards to mirroring the view that Argentina has on climate change today, it would probably have been a better choice to use the second NDC, but as mentioned before, the idea was to use each country's first NDCs to make fair comparisons. There was also a language barrier concerning Argentina’s second NDC. Thirdly, it is a bit unclear what specific actors are responsible for writing the NDCs. However, as the documents are submitted on a country level, this paper assumes that governments stand by the content that is provided in the NDCs.

4.4 Method

(18)

Brazil and Mexico’s governments describe the climate change issue in their NDCs? and How are the cases similar or different to each other in terms of how they describe the climate change issue? Another option would have been to use quantitative content analysis.

However, this method was rejected because it was seen as limiting for the study to only look at frequency and space. As Esaiasson et al (2017:198f) points to, frequency and space are also factors that are taken into account when using qualitative content analysis, however, it does also take other factors into account. In order to fulfill the aims of the study, I argue that it is needed to look also for how much emphasis is put on a certain frame and for hidden messages. Therefore, the method used in this study is a qualitative content analysis.

4.5 Analytical framework

The analysis departs from an analytical framework in the form of a coding scheme. Each of the frames that have been described in the theoretical framework section, have been

operationalized into 2-3 questions. The purpose of the operationalization was to make it easier to identify the different frames in the texts. When analyzing the texts, the coding scheme helped as guidance. All of the NDCs were read multiple times. Both quickly with the aim to get an overview, and more deeply to look for details.

Coding scheme

The conflict frame

- Does the NDC point to any disagreements between actors in relation to climate change?

- Does the NDC discuss different approaches towards climate change? The economic consequences frame

- Does the NDC discuss any possibilities for economic growth or economic losses in relation to climate change?

- Is climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation pictured as economically costly or as economic opportunities?

The human interest frame

- Does the NDC discuss how people have been affected by climate change? - Does the NDC discuss how people will be affected by climate change? The morality frame

- Does the NDC refer to religion when discussing climate change?

- Does the NDC refer to what is right or wrong when discussing climate change? The responsibility frame

(19)

- Does the NDC discuss who is responsible for solving climate change? - Does the NDC discuss the country’s own responsibility and contribution?

5. Analysis

The following section will present the results from the study. There is one subsection for each frame that was presented in the theoretical framework section, under which all countries' usage of the frame is discussed separately and then compared to each other. Citations from the texts will be used to help clarify and strengthen arguments.

5.1 The conflict frame

Argentina

The conflict frame is prominent in Argentina’s NDC. Different approaches towards climate change are not laid out in detail, but tendencies towards disagreement between different actors can still be seen. One such example includes the criticism towards previous administrations in Argentina.

“After the change of administration at the end of 2015, climate change has taken a new dimension through a strategic approach, with a strong political support and new commitment, considering the global needs to tackle one of the largest challenges the humanity now faces” (Republic of Argentina, 2016:9).

The comparison between earlier administrations' way of handling versus today’s

administration’s strategies, provides evidence for the conflict frame since it shows that there exists disagreement on the climate change issue between different administrations in

Argentina. Furthermore, Argentina’s NDC also shows that there might also exist different approaches to climate change and climate change mitigation between countries, by comparing its own contributions to other countries’ efforts.

“... Argentina’s reviewed contribution, compared to the unconditional contributions of the rest of the countries, is four times its current participation in the global emissions, this showing its ambitious level” (Republic of Argentina, 2016:4)

(20)

responsibilities they have in terms of climate change mitigation. The emphasis that is put on the different approaches shows that Argentina makes use of the conflict frame in their NDC as they communicate on climate change.

Brazil

The conflict frame is not one of the most prominent frames in Brazil’s NDC, even though it is still present. It does, to some extent, recognize different approaches towards responsibility for climate change mitigation and adaptation between countries. This can be seen through how Brazil compares its own contribution to other countries.

“Brazil’s NDC is among the most ambitious in the world, being one of the few that includes commitments not only for 2030, but also for 2025…” (Brazil, 2020:1).

This statement can, on the one hand, be seen as Brazil trying to show how ambitious and committed they are when it comes to fighting climate change. On the other hand, the fact that Brazil claims that they are more ambitious than others might be a sign that there exist

different approaches or disagreement among countries on how ambitious one needs to be within the flexible part of the Paris Agreement, which results in countries taking more or less action.

Mexico

In the case of Mexico, not enough evidence was found for the conflict frame to say that it is one of the most prominent frames in Mexico’s NDC, but it was still present. Mexico

compares its contributions in terms of climate mitigation to the United States (Mexico, 2020:37), which might show that there might exist different approaches between countries on how seriously climate change mitigation should be taken, or how much responsibility they have to take.

Comparison

(21)

different approaches towards responsibility for climate change mitigation and adaptation between countries.

5.2 The economic consequences frame

Argentina

The economic consequences frame is one of the most prominent in Argentina’s NDC. The NDC discusses mainly the economic consequences that climate change could result in, and not so much the economic consequences that could come from climate change mitigation.

“The vulnerability regarding climate change becomes highly relevant regarding the agricultural activity because of its prominent place on the economic development of the country and its fundamental role on the production and supply of food on a global scale.” (Republic of Argentina, 2016:5).

Based on the quotation above, one could argue that Argentina picture climate change as something that will have bad effects on the economy, rather than something that will foster good economic opportunities. The concern expressed over worsening opportunities for exportation and economic development further strengthen this argument. In addition, climate change is also seen as something that could affect the country’s energy system (Republic of Argentina, 2016:5f), which one can imagine will have further consequences for the economy. The emphasis that is put on the negative economic consequences of climate change, can be interpreted as stopping climate change through mitigation and adaptation is seen as an option that would create better economic opportunities compared to letting climate change continue. The emphasis put on the economic consequences of climate change in Argentina’s NDC shows that this is seen as an important aspect of the issue.

Brazil

The economic consequences frame is one of the most prominent frames in Brazil’s NDC. The economic aspects of climate change itself, and of fighting climate change, frequently occur in the NDC. This shows that Brazil makes use of the economic consequences frame in

communicating on climate change.

(22)

Brazil’s focus lies in how costly climate change mitigation and adaptation will be, rather than recognizing the costs that climate change will cause. In the citation above, emphasis is put on how much it will cost for Brazil to adapt to impacts of climate change rather than how

climate change might limit the country’s economic development.

“Production of biofuels for transport keeps growing with the support of the Renovabio Program, which uses decarbonization market mechanisms to foster production and consumption of these renewable resources.” (Brazil, 2020:8).

However, there seems to be certain circumstances under which Brazil actually sees that climate change mitigation could generate economic opportunities. This is if there are market mechanisms in place. Handling climate change through the market seems to be Brazil’s solution to how mitigation can be achieved. The market is seen as so important that they claim that the goals of the Paris Agreement relies on these mechanisms (Brazil, 2020:1).

Mexico

The economic consequences frame is one of the most prominent in Mexico’s NDC. It discusses the economic consequences of climate change, the costs of climate change mitigation as well as possibilities for economic opportunities.

“These situations have impacts on ecological and productive systems that are highly sensitive to temperature and precipitation variations, resulting in economic loss, which may increase in the future under climate change scenarios.” (Mexico, 2020:10)

The citation above illustrates that Mexico sees climate change as connected to bad economic consequences. There is a risk that it will not only result in economic losses today, but also in the future. One can argue that because of these economic losses that climate change is associated with, climate change mitigation and adaptation must be seen as good options for the economy.

“These commitments rely on the consolidation, at international level, of technology transfer mechanisms, an international price for carbon trading, adjustment of tariffs for carbon content, technical cooperation and access to low-cost financial resources, all on a scale equivalent to the challenge required to address climate change”

(23)

However, it does not seem to be as easy to say that climate change mitigation and adaptation create better economic opportunities because climate change creates economic losses. Mexico also recognizes that doing something about climate change is also costly. As illustrated above, financial resources are seen as a vital part and a condition needed for achieving these goals. Good economics is thus something that Mexico sees as an advantage in fighting climate change and something that can catalyze climate change mitigation and adaptation. This shows that climate change mitigation is connected with economic costs, at least in the initial stage.

“In addition, Mexico has made progress in the implementation of a variety of economic instruments, such as the issuance of green bonds, the establishment of a Carbon Tax and the Emissions Trading System.” (Mexico, 2020:24)

The establishment of these economic instruments shows that there exists an idea that it is possible to create economic opportunities from climate change mitigation.

Comparison

The economic consequences frame is a prominent frame in all countries’ NDCs, however, there exists both differences and similarities in what they emphasize within the frame. Argentina focuses on the economic costs of climate change, whereas Brazil focuses on how expensive climate change mitigation and adaptation will be. Mexico is similar to both of the other cases, as it discusses both the economic costs of climate change and of climate change mitigation and adaptation. One can say that the countries differ in what they see as most damaging to the economy. On the other hand, the countries are similar in that they all

recognize that there are possibilities for climate mitigation to create economic opportunities. In the case of Brazil and Mexico this shows through the emphasis on market mechanisms and economic tools, and in the case of Argentina it shows through how much emphasis is put on how bad climate change will be for the economy and the country’s economic development.

5.3 The human interest frame

Argentina

(24)

“The risk of the transmission of dengue fever and other diseases caused by the same vector is elevated all year long in the north and northeast of Argentina, while in the center of the country the risk is focused on summer. Because of global warming, intensification on the transmission of diseases on the current endemo-epidemic areas is expected.” (Republic of Argentina, 2016:6)

Painting pictures of how climate change could have bad effects on human health through mentioning how climate change can increase the spread of different diseases is one way in which Argentina makes use of the human interest frame. Additionally, the NDC mentions things such as food security (Republic of Argentina, 2016:6). One can argue that this also leaves the reader with pictures of people not having access to food, which can make the reader feel personally affected and foster engagement.

Brazil

The human interest frame is less prominent in Brazil’s NDC. It recognizes that some groups in society, such as women and indigenous, need to receive extra attention (Brazil, 2020:3), which indicates that these groups may be seen as more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. However, these aspects of climate change receive little attention, which speaks to the fact that Brazil sees other aspects of climate change as more important to put forward when communicating on climate change.

Mexico

The human interest frame is one of the most prominent frames in Mexico’s NDC. Through the text, there is a clear focus on national circumstances, living conditions and how

vulnerable groups are affected and will be affected by climate change in the future.

“In Mexico, several social groups are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Among them are indigenous and Afro-Mexican communities, the vast majority of whom live in impoverished, highrisk areas.'' (Mexico, 2020:14)

(25)

and adaptation. This, of course, induces specific feelings in the reader, which speaks for the human interest frame.

“The conservation of agrobiodiversity, the battle against desertification and the reduction of overexploitation of land and marine natural resources, represent challenges closely related to food security” (Mexico, 2020:15).

Further evidence for the human interest frame includes the central role of humans while discussing climate change. Different impacts that climate change will have is mainly

examined in relation to humans, such as for example desertification. Focus lies in how these impacts of climate change relates to food security, which is of course a huge problem for humans. Not having access to food can be thought of as a worst case scenario for many people, and thus a theme that I argue touches and engages people. By speaking of a diverse problem such as climate change in these manners, it becomes clear to people that climate change is something that could have severe effects on them, and even their possibilities to stay alive, which raises feelings.

Comparison

The human interest frame is most prominent in Mexico’s NDC, even though it is also prominent in Argentina’s NDC. The reason why it is seen as more prominent in Mexico’s NDC is because of the central role that humans are given when assessing the impacts of climate change. The human interest frame was least prominent in Brazil’s NDC. This could be because they see other aspects of climate change as more important to put forward when communicating on climate change. What is similar in all countries’ NDCs is that they recognize that there are groups of people that are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

5.4 The morality frame

Argentina

(26)

Brazil

The morality frame is prominent in Brazil’s NDC. Even though Brazil does not make references to religion, they are clear about what they think is right and wrong in terms of responsibility. As we can see in the citation below, they refer to “the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities”, which they see as their moral ground when arguing that different countries have different responsibilities for solving climate change.

“This understanding provides for the main moral foundation underpinning the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which is one of the central pillars of the international climate change regime, constituted by the UNFCCC, its Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.” (Brazil, 2020:7).

Mexico

The morality frame is far from the most prominent in Mexico’s NDC. It is recognized that religious beliefs should be respected when different measures are taken to adapt to climate change (Mexico, 2020:20). However, this is the only evidence that was found for the morality frame in Mexico’s NDC, which shows that it is not an aspect of climate change that Mexico prioritizes in its communication on climate change.

Comparison

The morality frame is most prominent in Brazil’s NDC. Compared to Brazil, the frame is not prominent in the other two cases even though Mexico positions itself in between the two other cases when it comes to using the morality frame. However, in comparison to Brazil that refers to morals as guidance for how climate change should be handled, Mexico’s emphasis on religion in relation to climate change adaptation is seen as weak.

5.5 The responsibility frame

Argentina

(27)

“The participation of the Argentine Republic in the global emissions of GHGs in 2014 was of 0.7% of the total global emissions. Argentina’s reviewed mitigation

contribution represents a participation of 2.8% of the country over the total amount of unconditional reductions informed by the Parties of UNFCCC ...” (Republic of

Argentina, 2016:3f).

Even though the NDC does not straightforwardly state who is responsible for the cause of climate change, it can still be seen through the citation above that Argentina sees that

countries can carry more or less responsibility. This is shown through how they pay attention to how many percent of the total global emissions that they are responsible for, rather than seeing that all countries are together responsible for the total amount of global emissions. Argentina also makes use of these numbers in judging their own responsibility and

contributions. Through comparing their part of the global emissions to their engagement in climate change mitigation, they send the message that they are doing enough if not more than what can be expected from them.

Their way of judging their own responsibility and contribution also says something about how they view the responsibility of solving the climate change issue. The responsibility to solve is correlated with how much of the global emissions that a country is responsible for. Even though Argentina recognizes that parties do not carry equal responsibility, one could argue that they see that all carry some responsibility. This is shown through how the government involves multiple other actors within the country to reach the set goals for climate change mitigation and adaptation (Republic of Argentina, 2016:7ff).

Brazil

The responsibility frame is one of the most prominent frames in Brazil’s NDC. It discusses who carries the responsibility for the cause of climate change and who carries the

responsibility for solving the issue, as well as Brazil’s own responsibility and contribution. Responsibility is a recurring theme throughout the NDC. This shows that Brazil views the climate change issue heavily in terms of responsibility, and that’s the message that they want to send out to the other parties in the Paris Agreement and other actors that take part of the NDCs.

(28)

period). … , resulting from human activities and consequent greenhouse gas emissions, primarily by developed countries …” (Brazil, 2020:7)

Brazil is clear on who they see as responsible for the cause of climate change. Rather than seeing that all countries have played some kind of role through emitting ghg emissions, Brazil points out some countries to be more responsible than others because of their history and the emissions that it has caused. The countries that are pointed out as more responsible are developed countries.

“... the marginal relative contribution to the global average surface temperature increase is a relevant measure for evaluating the level of each party’s responsibility in the collective effort …” (Brazil, 2020:7)

It is also clear that the government of Brazil thinks that the developed countries also carry the most responsibility for solving climate change. Fairness plays a central role when Brazil discusses responsibility for acting to solve climate change. As can be seen above, it is suggested that the responsibility to contribute to climate mitigation should be directly correlated with the responsibility one carries for the cause of climate change.

“... it is clear that this NDC is a far more ambitious effort than what would be required by Brazil’s marginal relative responsibility for global average temperature increases. Indeed, Brazil’s NDC is one of the most ambitious in the world.” (Brazil,

2020:7).

Brazil is also positive about its own contributions. The citation above illustrates that Brazil’s view on its own contributions is that they are doing more than enough with regards to its responsibility. There seems to exist a frustration over that Brazil has to take responsibility for something that they might not have caused themselves.

Mexico

The responsibility frame is one of the most prominent frames in Mexico’s NDC. It discusses responsibility for the cause of climate change, responsibility for solving climate change as well as the country's own responsibilities and contributions.

(29)

together by the UN (Mexico, 2020:9), showing that Mexico sees that there are many

countries that share responsibility. Mexico also recognizes itself as one of the top 20 emitters (Mexico, 2020:9), which shows that they see themselves as a part of the problem, rather than blaming and putting all guilt on other countries. However, they still recognize that there are countries that have emitted more and thus are more responsible for climate change (Mexico, 2020:9).

“It is considered to be fair, since Mexico's contribution to global emissions is 1.3% of the global total, with per capita emissions of 3.7 tons, which is below the global average of 5 tons per capita, that is, 4.4 times less than that of our main trading partner, the United States of America with 16.5 tons per capita and half of the world's largest emitter, 7.5 tons per capita.” (Mexico, 2020:37)

Mexico’s view on its own contributions seems to be that they are doing enough. As can be seen from the citation above, Mexico bases its judgement on how much of the global

emissions they are responsible for. The comparison with the United States of America shows that this is also a model that Mexico uses in judging other countries' responsibilities for solving climate change. Consequently, one can say that Mexico’s approach is that the more you have emitted, the more responsible you are for solving the climate change issue. There is also an emphasis on international cooperation, as well as the inclusion of the private sector (Mexico, 2020:10), which shows that Mexico still sees that there is more than one actor that is responsible for solving climate change.

Comparison

(30)

the countries is that they all think that they are taking the responsibility that can be expected from them, and that they are contributing enough in the fight against climate change.

6. Discussion

As has been illustrated in the analysis, almost all frames are used by all three countries in one way or another. However, it differs how prominent the frames are within the NDCs and what is discussed within the frames. The main findings from this study are first, that the

responsibility frame and the economic consequences frame were the two frames that were prominent in all cases' NDCs. The study found that all of the countries in this study describe the climate change issue in terms of responsibility and economic consequences. Second, the study has also shown that to what extent the countries highlight conflictual approaches, take into account effects on humans or refer to morality differs between the cases. Argentina showed more prominence in using the conflict frame. Mexico was the case that used the human interest frame most frequently, even though this frame was also prominent in

Argentina’s NDC. Brazil made most use of the morality frame in its NDC. Consequently, the study showed that there exists both similarities and differences in how the countries describe the climate change issue in their NDCs.

What is particularly interesting about the results is the differences, since this study has been done with a most similar design. It falls outside the aims of this paper to explain why these differences in framing exist, but it can be noted that there are other underlying factors that this study has not taken into account that also have an effect on how the climate change issue is described. Concerning the conflict frame, one could think that an underlying factor could be for example one's relationship to previous administrations or other countries. Regarding the human interest frame, previous experiences of climate change impacts apart from extreme weather events can be thought of as possible underlying factors. When it comes to the

morality frame, the presence and the role of religion or other doctrines for moral guidance could be thought of as possible underlying factors.

This study has confirmed the complexity of the climate issue, by showing that not even countries that are seen to be similar in many aspects describe the climate change issue in exactly the same way. This is an important contribution as it can help understand the

(31)

handling climate change falls on the governments, it is necessary to understand these challenges, for it not to stand in the way of the global effort that is needed to overcome climate change. A weakness with this study is that it has only looked at a few cases. Consequently, it is not comprehensive in how countries describe the climate change issue. The results from this study can be applied to countries that are similar to Argentina, Brazil and Mexico on the variables that were explained in the case selection section. The results tell us that countries that are similar to each other, tend to describe the climate change issue in similar ways, but also that differences exist. Therefore extra caution is needed in making generalizations.

By investigating how governments make use of framing to describe the climate change issue, this study has made a contribution to an area in research that has not been studied enough by previous research. The findings are in line with the study by Matthes (2012), saying that not only news media, but also political actors do make use of frames in their communication. However, the study contributes with a new angle by looking at how governments make use of framing in relation to climate change specifically. An area that Schäfer and O’Neill (2017) recognize have not been extensively researched before, compared to for example news media and climate change.

7. Conclusion

(32)

8. References

Badullovich, N., Grant, W J., Colvin, R M., 2020, Framing climate change for effective communication: a systematic map, Environmental research letters, 15(12), pp. 1-16

Brazil, 2020, Paris Agreement Brazil’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, available at

<www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Brazil%20First/Brazil%20First%20 NDC%20(Updated%20submission).pdf> [Accessed 6 April 2021]

de Vreese, Claes H., 2005, News framing: Theory and typology, Information design journal

& document design, 13(1), pp. 51-62

den Elzen, Michel., Kuramochi, Takeshi., Höhne, Niklas., Cantzler, Jasmin., Esmeijer, Kendall., Fekete, Hanna., Fransen, Taryn., Keramidas, Kimon., Roelfsema, Mark., Sha, Fu., van Soest, Heleen., Vandyck, Toon., 2019, Are the G20 economies making enough progress to meet their NDC targets?, Energy policy, 126, pp. 238-250

Dimitrov, Radoslav., 2016, The Paris Agreement on climate change: Behind closed doors,

Global environmental politics, 16(3), pp. 1-11

Dirikx, Astrid., Gelders, Dave., 2010, To frame is to explain: A deductive frame-analysis of Dutch and French climate change coverage during the annual UN conferences of the Parties,

Public Understanding of science, 19(6), pp. 732-742

Eckstein, David., Künzel, Vera., Schäfer, Laura., 2021, Global climate risk index 2021 Who

suffers most from extreme weather events? Weather-related loss events in 2019 and 2000-2019, Bonn: Germanwatch, available at

<https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Global%20Climate%20Risk%20Inde x%202021_1_0.pdf> [Accessed 6 May 2021]

Entman, Robert., 1993, Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm, Journal of

communication, 43(4), pp. 51-58

Esaiasson, Peter., Gilljam, Mikael., Oscarsson, Henrik., Towns, Ann., Wängnerud, Lena., 2017, Metodpraktikan: Konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad. Stockholm: Wolters Kluwer.

Fridays for future, 2021, Who we are, Fridays for future, available at

(33)

Friedrich, Johannes., Damassa, Thomas., 2014, The history of carbon dioxide emissions,

World resources institute, [online], 21 May, available at

<www.wri.org/insights/history-carbon-dioxide-emissions> [Accessed 6 May 2021] Hirst, David., 2020, The history of global climate change negotiations, UK Parliament, [online], 24 June, available at

<https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-history-of-global-climate-change-negotiations/> [Accessed 16 April 2021]

IDEA, 2021a, Argentina, International institute for democracy and electoral assistance, [online], available at

<www.idea.int/gsod-indices//#/indices/countries-regions-profile?rsc=%5B160%5D&covid19 =1> [Accessed 19 April 2021]

IDEA, 2021b, Brazil, International institute for democracy and electoral assistance, [online], available at

<www.idea.int/gsod-indices//#/indices/countries-regions-profile?rsc=%5B140%5D&covid19 =1> [Accessed 19 April 2021]

IDEA, 2021c, Mexico, International institute for democracy and electoral assistance, [online], available at

<www.idea.int/gsod-indices//#/indices/countries-regions-profile?rsc=%5B70%5D&covid19= 1> [Accessed 19 April 2021]

IPCC, 2018, Impacts of 1.5℃ of global warming on natural and human systems, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, available at

<www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Chapter3_Low_Res.pdf> [Accessed 28 April 2021]

Jang, Mo., Hart, Sol., 2015, Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global warming” across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data, Global Environmental Change, 32, pp. 11-17

Kingdon, John., 2013, Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, Update edition with an

epilogue on health care, Harlow: Pearson education

Matthes, Jörg., 2012, Framing politics: An integrative approach, American Behavioral

Scientist, 56(3), pp. 247–259

Mexico, 2020, Nationally Determined Contributions 2020 Update, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, available at

(34)

Minstrom, Michael., and Luetjens, Joannah., 2017, Policy entrepreneurs and problem framing: The case of climate change, Environment and Planning C: Politics and space, 35(8), pp. 1362-1377

NE, n.d., Framing, Nationalencyklopedin, [online], available at

<https://www.ne.se/uppslagsverk/encyklopedi/l%C3%A5ng/framing> [Accessed 12 April 2021]

Nisbet, Matthew., 2010, Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement, Environment: Science and policy for sustainable development, 51(2), pp. 12-23 Ostrom, Elinor., 2010, Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change, Global Environmental Change, 20 (4), pp. 550-557

Pan, Yeheng., Opgenhaffen, Michaël., Van Gorp, Baldwin., 2019, Negotiating climate change: A frame analysis of COP21 om British, American, and Chinese news media, Public

understanding of science, 28(5), pp. 519-533

Pralle, Sarah., 2009, Agenda-setting and climate change, Environmental Politics, 18(5), pp. 781-799

Republic of Argentina, 2016, Republic of Argentina First Revision of its Nationally

Determined Contribution, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,

available at

<www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Argentina%20First/Traducci%C3% B3n%20NDC_Argentina.pdf> [Accessed 6 April 2021]

Schäfer, Mike S., O’Neill, Saffron, 2017, Frame Analysis in Climate Change

Communication: Approaches for Assessing Journalists’ Minds, Online Communication and Media Portrayals. In: Nisbet, Matthew., Ho, Shirley., Markowitz, Ezra., O’Neill, Saffron., Schäfer, Mike S., Thaker, Jagadish. Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-35

Semetko, Holli., Valkenburg, Patti., 2000, Framing european politics: A content analysis of press and television news, Journal of communication, 50(2), pp. 93-109

Svenska FN-förbundet, 2013, Brasilien, Globalis, [online], 9 December, available at <www.globalis.se/Laender/brasilien> [Accessed 4 May 2021]

Svenska FN-förbundet, 2014, Argentina, Globalis, [online], 24 April, available at <www.globalis.se/Laender/argentina> [Accessed 4 May 2021]

(35)

UN, n.d., The Paris agreement, The United Nations, [online], available at

<https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement> [Accessed 5 April 2021]

UNFCCC, n.d., All NDCs, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, available at <www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/All.aspx> [Accessed 6 April 2021] World bank, 2016, CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) - Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Sweden, The World bank, [online], available at

<https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=BR-MX-AR-SE> [Accessed 19 April 2021]

World bank, 2019, GDP per capita (current US$) - Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, The World

bank, [online], available at

<https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=BR-MX-AR> [Accessed 19 April 2021]

Young, Oran., 2016, The Paris Agreement: Destined to Succeed or Doomed to Fail?, Politics

What kind of issue is climate change really? - A qualitative study on how Argentina, Brazil and Mexico describe the climate change issue in their NDCs