EUROPEAN STUDIES
Climate Change Scepticism -
A qualitative study of Clexit and their arguments against the Paris Agreement and the European Union
Amanda Thiman
Essay/Thesis: 15 hp
Program and/or course: European Studies
Level: First Cycle
Semester/year: At/2017
Supervisor: Mats Andrén
Examiner:
Report no:
Abstract
Climate change scepticism is a concept that refers to people or groups that mistrust, reject or question the mainstream view of the climate change threat. The purpose of this thesis is therefore to illuminate climate change scepticism by doing a qualitative analysis of the arguments by an organisation called Clexit. The study finds out that arguments most frequently used by Clexit are motivated by emotions and relate to a worry of economic downfall and supranational governments. Clexit want countries to leave the UN Paris Agreement and they are especially focused on the EU. The EU is, according to them, a growing supranational government that focuses on setting goals to hinder climate change to get their own agendas through. Although answers as to why climate change scepticism exists cannot be given, in this type of study, assumptions about organisations like Clexit and how the arguments by Clexit could be understood and classified, from previous theories and research, can be made. These assumptions conclude that culture and economy has great influence on people’s opinions and that the arguments are based on existing debates and issues that concern a great deal of people.
Key words: Climate change, Environment, Scepticism, Clexit, European Union, Paris Agreement, United Nations.
Word count: 12 994 Pages: 36
Table of content
1. Introduction...1
1.1 Purpose...2
1.2 Research questions...2
1.3 Delimitation and structure of the thesis...3
2. Background...4
2.1 The history of Climate Change Scepticism...4
2.2 Clexit...5
2.3 The UN Paris Agreement and the EU as a driving force...7
3. Theory and previous research...10
3.1 Theories and previous research...10
3.2 Previous research regarding Clexit and Climate Scepticism...12
4. Method and material...14
4.1 Argument analysis...14
4.2 Reasons to use argument analysis in this thesis...16
4.3 Materials...17
5. Result & Analysis...18
5.1 Arguments from “The Clexit Founding Statement”...18
5.2 Arguments from “Party for the Climateers”...25
5.3 Arguments from “Swedish Clexit”...27
6. Conclusion...29
Reference list...33
Appendix...36
1. Introduction
One of the most discussed topics today is climate change. A topic that bears much concern for some people and a problem many of us know we need to do something about. Because global climate change see no borders, it is a problem that will affect all living things, despite one’s distance to the source of the pollution emission.1
The climate changes we have seen over the past century is, according to ninety-seven percent of climate scientists, a result of human activities. Because of carbon dioxide’s nature of heat- trapping, there is no question of the fact that the increased pollutions are causing the global temperature to rise. The Earth’s temperature has increased, since the late 20th century, by almost 1.1 degrees Celsius. As a direct result of the increased temperature our environment is changing and consequences has already been reported; ice sheets are starting to decrease in mass, oceans are getting warmer, sea levels are rising, extreme nature events are more frequent and glaciers are retreating more and more around the world.2
To prevent the global temperature from rising even more and hindering the climate to change beyond recovery, the UN and the EU have been big promoters for implementing an international agreement. In this agreement countries around the globe help to reduce emissions, and apply more green energy policies.3 But despite all the steps taken to prevent further changes and the scientific unanimity regarding climate change, some people persistently stay sceptical.4 Therefore importance lie in finding out how climate sceptics, in this study an organisation called Clexit, argue and how these arguments can be understood.
Clexit was formed not long after Brexit, and they stand for a similar campaign as the
“Brexiteers” did, only instead of exiting the EU they represent a “Climate Exit”. The organisation is especially focused on the EU, who were big promoters for the UN Paris Agreement, and one of their slogans are; “We need our own Clexit – climate exit from the 1 Cogoy, M. & Steininger, K. (2007). The Economics of Global Environmental Change. p. 31 2 Nasa. (2017). Climate change: How do we know? https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
3 Council of the EU. (2017). Paris Agreement on Climate change.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/climate-change/timeline/#
4 Jylhä, K., Cantal, C., Akrami, N. & Milfront, T. (2016). Denial of anthropogenic climate change: Social dominance orientation helps explain the conservative male effect in Brazil and Sweden, p. 184
energy vandals of Europe”.5 Therefore, I have chosen to focus my research on Clexit solely in Europe and the member states. Because I want to see how the organisation argues for countries in the EU to exit the climate change agreement and understand where these arguments come from. The organisation is not formed in Europe but its mistrust against the Paris Agreement and the EU are visible. I want to explore this mistrust further and up till now, research about Clexit is missing from academic circles.
1.1 Purpose
With this thesis I want to illuminate climate scepticism and study the relatively newly founded organisation called Clexit and their arguments. This will be done by using an argument analysis method to see how the organisation express themselves and how they argue for their cause. Significance lies in finding out the arguments of Clexit, which sort of argument they use and why they have a mistrust for the Paris Agreement and the EU. By using the information gattered from my analysis and connect the result to theories from previous research I hope to better understand Clexit’s view on the EU and climate change. By doing this I will contribute to the general scientific knowledge about climate change sceptics.
With Clexit as the general sceptic group I will be able to draw assumptions about other organisations like Clexit and hopefully better understand these organisations standpoint in our society.
1.2 Research questions
What are the arguments of climate scepticism by Clexit?
How can these arguments be classified and understood?
5 Morano, M. (2016). Australians Declare: “After Brexit – We need Clexit”. Climate Depot.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/06/28/austrailians-declare-after-brexit-we-need-clexit- from-un-climate-agreement/
1.3 Delimitation and structure of the thesis
This thesis is focused on explaining what Clexit is and stand for, by analysing their arguments. Together with the opinions of Clexit and background information about the UN Paris Agreement and climate change scepticism, the study focuses on the complexity of climate change in Europe. It clarifies what ambitions Clexit has and their relation to the EU.
The study is centred on the present, because the problem area is so relevant and can easily be put into contrast with recent events in Europe, specifically related to Brexit and the ongoing struggle to hinder climate change. Therefore, much information was gathered from the EU, the UN and sources representing Clexit.
One delimitation necessary to this thesis, was to not include all the different terms used to define climate change scepticism. Such as denialism, contrarianism, anti-science, mistrust and dismissal.6 In this thesis, only previous research about climate change scepticism, and not climate change denial is used. Because the study about Clexit does not related to climate change denial, as the organisation does not deny that the climate is changing. They are aware of climate change, but claim it is natural and not a result of human impact.7
The structure is as follows: The thesis starts with an introduction which presents the subject and continues to explain the purpose of the study. Secondly, some background information is given about climate change scepticism, Clexit, the Paris Agreement and the role of the European Union. After that, theories and previous research is presented, followed by method and material. Subsequently, the result of the analysis is presented and to conclude the study, answers to the questions and summaries of my conclusions are given.
6 Björnberg-Edvardsson, K., Karlsson, M., Gilek, M. and Hansson, S. O. (2017). Climate and environmental science denial, p. 237
7 Forbes, V. (July 31, 2016). After Brexit, Clexit: The Clexit Founding Statement.
http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clexit.pdf
2. Background
To give all readers an insight in the subject: climate change scepticism, I have chosen to present a brief background on the topics most significant throughout this study. The background is divided up in the following headlines, The history of Climate Change Scepticism, Clexit and The UN Paris Agreement and the EU as a driving force.
2.1 The history of Climate Change Scepticism
Climate change is much more than a problem waiting for a resolution. It has evolved into a phenomenon of ecological, political and cultural differences, which has changed the way we regard ourselves and humanity’s mark on this planet.8 But because of this, climate change has also become a subject where people disagree. Conversations about dangerous climate changes first started in Europe and North America in the beginning of the 1960s. This together with Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring prompted a green wave.9 The book documented the danger and the effects caused by using the toxic, DDT (a synthetic pesticide), that was being used during the time. This was something that stirred up a difference of opinion regarding climate change. Rachel Carson was slandered by industries promoting the pesticides and governments that stood behind the production. But the book also generated fans and started a movement that we still see traces of in today’s debates about climate change.10
In 1971, a Swedish report was published. It bored the title Study of Man’s Impact on Climate.
After this, at the first conference of the United Nations concerning the environment, held in Stockholm 1972, the UN wanted to determine and create awareness regarding the human impact on the global environment and climate. Unknown at this stage was whether the human impact was inducing the global temperature to rise or fall. The statement that human activities could alter climate change was concluded but also, by some, met with distrust.11
8 Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change, p. 5 9 Ibid. p. 62
10 Paull, J. (2013). The Rachel Carson Letters and the Making of ’Silent Spring’, p. 1-2 11 Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change, p. 62-63
This distrust later grew and now, in recent debates people are still sceptical about the human impact. Observations after this has settled in two positions which, both cannot be true. One is that global warming is occurring naturally and is part of a 1,500-year-old cycle. This claim is according to Mike Hulme by Dennis Avery and Fred Singer from their book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 years, where the writers conclude that trying to control human emissions will not change anything. The other claim, put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) points to an increased temperature since the 1950s and that this is caused by an increased emission of greenhouse gas. With this division, suspicion grew on why scientists could not give accurate answers about what the main cause for climate change was. Responses regarding how much the temperature could rise were not answered either. But according to Hulme the media was promoting the human impact, saying that scientists agreed that the temperature should not exceed above two degrees Celsius. These campaigns in media is said to have triggered nations to take action and lower their emissions, but it is according to Hulme also a reason as to why people doubt the scientific community. The media has generated greater change than scientific discoveries, which has caused mistrust.12
Hulme’s theory above is still a cause for doubt within the sceptical organisations but also a bit different from today’s scepticism or the campaigns to create more distrust against the reliability of scientific data. In the article, “Climate and environmental science denial”, the writers point out that political leaders that express doubt in the conformed climate change debate has a big opportunity to generate more mistrust, and in the future the consequents of this could result in policies that are not based on scientific findings. Organizations that work with spreading doubt are already a reality and scepticism continues to live on. So, by classifying arguments and trends within the scientific literature the aim is to illuminate climate scepticism and to understand the arguments.13
12 Ibid. p. 72-74
13 Björnberg-Edvardsson, K., Karlsson, M., Gilek, M. and Hansson, S. O. (2017). Climate and environmental science denial, p. 230
2.2 Clexit
In June 2016, 51.9 percent of the British citizens voted for their country to leave the European Union. Shortly after the referendum, commonly called Brexit, the United Kingdom invoked article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and showed everyone that Britain were withdrawing from the EU.14 Not long after Brexit an organisation, inspired by the United Kingdom’s actions to leave the EU, was formed. This international organisation is called Clexit and they stand for a similar campaign as Brexit did, only instead of exiting the EU they represent a “Climate Exit” from the UN Paris Agreement. The organisation is especially focused on the EU, who are big promoters of the Agreement, as one of their slogans are; “We need our own Clexit – climate exit from the energy vandals of Europe”.15
The Paris Agreement was put in place to take actions against the growing climate change and is supported by the EU and various countries over the world. But according to the secretary of Clexit, Australian Viv Forbes, the Paris Agreement, if implemented could cause a global disaster. Consequents from abiding the Paris Agreement would result in a stop of low-cost hydrocarbon transport and electricity. Which for developing countries could mean a costly future, where biomass and weather-dependent power supplies would be their only option.
Countries big on manufacturing and industries would also suffer from removing the low-cost energy they use today. These consequences would according to Clexit lead to resentment and global hostility.
The ambitions of Clexit is to make the world see reason and not go through with the ratifications endorsed by the agreement. According to Clexit and its members the war on carbon dioxide must stop, because the climate change is not caused by human activities. The organisation state that the Paris Agreement must be stopped, since the EU and the UN are focusing on getting their own ambitions through and will bring global despair to all.16
14 Pruitt, S. (March 29, 2017). History. The History Behind Brexit.
http://www.history.com/news/the-history-behind-brexit
15 Morano, M. (2016). Australians Declare: “After Brexit – We need Clexit”. Climate Depot.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/06/28/austrailians-declare-after-brexit-we-need-clexit- from-un-climate-agreement/
16 Forbes, V. (May 18, 2017). Kill the Paris Treaty and Rip Out the Roots.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170608070744/https://clexit.net/2017/05/18/kill-paris-treaty/
From the perspective of Clexit, the climate change hysteria, driven forth by scientists and the EU, is a false proclamation that source back to bureaucracies and governments. Especially the EU, who is more driven than anyone on promoting green energy, carbon prices and international control. So, by doing what the UK did, more countries should see reason and exit the Paris Agreement.17
Viv Forbes is a returning front figure regarding Clexit and the writer of most of their texts. He is from Australia and founding secretary of the organisation. Apart from his involvement in Clexit he has according to his former biography at Stanmore Coal, where he used to act as director, 40 years of experience in the coal industry. Now Forbes is chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, a site that defends carbon dioxide and is sceptic against limiting carbon emissions. In 2016, the organisation Clexit was founded.18 The organisation claim to have 190 members from 26 countries, they are listed as either members of The Clexit Committee, Founding Members or Clexit Regional Directors.19
In relation to other climate change sceptic organisations, Clexit is special. They are not targeting the denial of global warming or climate change such as other groups tend to do20, instead they are focused on the UN Paris Agreement and the EU in relation to being sceptical about climate change. But as said, their main focus is the connection between the Paris Agreement and its implications, because Clexit does not believe in a climate change and they think the UN and EU aims to become more supranational. Therefore, Clexit is of interest in this study, especially to analyse the arguments and illuminate their climate change scepticism.
2.3 The UN Paris Agreement and the EU as a driving force
Greenhouse gas emissions, as a result of human activities, are driving the global temperature up and due to the changed climate and the effect the environment has on everybody, everywhere, something must be done. More individuals and governments are acting and 17 Forbes, V. (July 31, 2016). After Brexit, Clexit: The Clexit Founding Statement.
http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clexit.pdf
18 Desmog. Viv Forbes. (2017). https://www.desmogblog.com/viv-forbes 19 Clexit.net. Clexit Members. http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clexit- members.pdf
20 Global Warming Skeptic Organizations. https://www.ucsusa.org/global-
warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.Wn7LfWZejLY
changing to renewable energy sources, but with such a global challenge as the earth’s climate it is important to work together internationally and help developing countries to evolve into a low-carbon economy.21
The Paris Agreement was formed out of COP21, the 21st conference of Parties of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). The goal with the agreement is to reinforce a global response against climate change and avoid increasing global temperature above two degrees Celsius.22 From the 22nd of April 2016 to the 21st of April 2017 the Paris Agreement was open for signatures. On the 4th of November 2016, the agreement came into force after more than 55 parties had signed for ratification, acceptance, approval or agreement.23 The Paris Agreement is an historic global step towards action against climate change. On the 28th of September 2017, 166 countries had officially joined the Paris Agreement.24 However, included in those 166 countries is not the second biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, the USA. On the 1st of June 2017, the Donald J. Trump administration decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. After the EU rejected Donald Trump’s suggestion to renegotiate the agreement.25 Although, other big gas emitters like China, Russia, India, and Japan has either signed and, or agreed to the ratifications.26
Traditionally the European Union has been categorized as a global leader when it comes to stopping climate change.27 The start of the twenty-first century was characterized by the severity of climate change, especially climate change as a potential threat to humans. Climate change was therefore made into a political priority by the EU, along with almost all its
21 United Nations. Climate change affects everyone.
http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climatechange/
22 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Background on the UNFCCC: The international response to climate change.
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php retrieved 2017-11-21
23 Dag Hammarskjöld Library. (Nov 03, 2016). What is the history of the Paris Agreement (2015)? http://ask.un.org/faq/120272
24 United Nations. Climate change affects everyone - What is the present status of the Paris Agreement on climate change? http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climatechange/
25 Milman, O., Smith, D. & Carrington, D. (June 1, 2017). Donald Trump confirms US will quit Paris climate agreement. The Guardian.
26 United Nations. (2017-12-21). Status as at: 21-12-2017 – environment.
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7- d&chapter=27&clang=_en
27 Oberthür, S. & Groen, L. (2017)- The European Union and the Paris Agreement: leader, mediator, or bystander?, p. 1
member states. The first international meeting regarding climate change took place at the end of the 1970s, even though evidence had been put forward before that. The meeting spurred the EC (European community) to take on the leading role as climate leader. The traditional view of only states having legal positions regarding international affairs was discarded when the EC/the EU took the role as an independent actor in the climate change debate.28 After that the European Union have implemented various climate change policies that has lead up to the development of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. The role of the EU as climate leaders has been rocky, from losing some of their influence after the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 to restoring it by adjusting strategies and building relations between states. The EU became what Obertür and Groen calls a “leadiator (i.e., a leader and mediator)” and a big promoter behind the Durban Platform introduction, 2011.29 Which also encouraged the work behind the Paris meeting 2015 and their desire to adopt the first, legally binding, international agreement.30 Thanks to the high ambitions and the goals achieved by the EU, their merit grew, and the acceptance of the Paris Agreement was more successful than anticipated. The EU has then gained a more mature and stable role as a climate leader, thus ensuring the Paris Agreement and its success.31
28 Wurzel, R. & Connelly, J. (2010). The European Union as a Leader in International Climate Change Politics, p. 3-5
29 Oberthür, S. & Groen, L. (2017). The European Union and the Paris Agreement: leader, mediator, or bystander?, p. 1-6.
30 European Commission. (2017). EU leads in implementing Paris climate Commitments.
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/efe/themes/climate-action/eu-leads-implementing-paris-climate- commitments_en
31 Oberthür, S. & Groen, L. (2017). The European Union and the Paris Agreement: leader, mediator, or bystander?, p. 1-6.
3. Theory and previous research
This section will include a summary of theories regarding climate change scepticism and how to classify the term. Theories and some of the previous research will be concluded in the same section, since the previous research is tightly connected to the theories. Another section will conclude a more general view of previous research of Clexit and climate change scepticism.
3.1 Theories and previous research
The phenomenon of climate scepticism is nothing new, and much information can be found about climate denial in different times and regarding different problems. Therefore, explaining climate change scepticism is hard, various perceptions lies behind the term and many reasons why mistrust for scientific “evidence” exists.32 One useful conceptual explanation comes from Rahmstrof (2004) cited from the article “Uncertain climate: An investigation into public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change”. Rahmstrof means that climate change scepticism can be divided into three categories, the first; trend sceptics are people or groups who deny an increased global temperature. Second, the attribution sceptics side with the fact that there is a climate change but it is not due to human activity. The last one is called impact sceptics, who think that human impact is the cause of climate change, but that this change won’t lead to any considerable damage for the planet or its habitants.33
Due to different interpretations, cultures and suggestions for necessary solutions for climate change, Andrew Hoffman thinks that this has created a dispute in the climate change debate.
The scientific community have focused almost solely into finding solutions for individuals and organizations to tackle the changes, but without considering the natural divergence between countries and cultures, so when people with different focuses try to challenge the unanimously scientific point of view, people have in many cases been dubbed “climate sceptics”. This theory by Hoffman, points to the fact that it takes more than scientific
32 Björnberg-Edvardsson, K., Karlsson, M., Gilek, M. & Hansson, S. O. (2017). Climate and environmental science denial, p. 230
33 Poortinga, W., Spencer, A., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, S. & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Uncertain climate: An investigation into public skepticism about anthropogenic climate change, p. 1016
evidence to influence the public and more reasons to make climate change into a bigger political debate in these regions.34
Another theory, by Charles Schmidt comes from the fact that the climate change debate often results in economic concerns. The steps taken to prevent further climate change, such as the Paris Agreement, contains many enforcements that will cost a lot of money, for all countries involved. Therefore, big disagreement lies in the question of how much climate solutions should cost. Convincing people that expenses payed now will fix some of the problems and relieve us from even further costs in the future is hard. Climate sceptics argue that today’s solutions are not cost-effective enough and will guarantee more costs in the future. However, the UN and the EU say that costs paid today are put in use to save not only the planet but economic losses in the future. Though, this is not the only connection between scepticism and economy. Some people that have made public stands against the unanimous scientific view have in some cases been linked together with industries or ideologies that are considered conservative or extreme. Some scientists have been working for certain industries or have, after publishing or speaking in public, received donations in form of money. Because of this, climate sceptics have gained a bad reputation and their motives when going against the mainstream opinions are often mistrusted and not taken into serious discussion.35
Both cultural and economic impacts to the climate change scepticism have been presented, but they are not alone in trying to classify the themes behind the scepticism. In Hoffman’s article another theory is presented, namely that of political and government mistrust. Climate sceptics often have a strained relation to those with power, their mistrust lies in the perception that countries´ governments use climate change challenges to interfere with the economical market and to reduce people’s freedom. Ultimately many sceptics think that climate policies will erase personal liberty and hinder the free market to progress.36
Therefore, Hoffman strongly points out the importance of seeing the bigger picture, and take in the debate to see the cultural influence, and try to educate. If not, work being done now will be hindered by those who do not agree, in form of no change in sustainable behaviour or by trying to obstruct climate legislations. So, by just neglecting or ignoring climate change
34 Hoffman, A. (2011). The culture and discourse of climate scepticism, p. 77-78 35 Schmidt, C. W. (2010). A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism, p. A538-539 36 Hoffman, A. (2011). The culture and discourse of climate scepticism, p. 79
sceptics our ability to comprehend their perspective and to understand the shift in public opinion will be lost. It is vital to see their ambitions by understanding their arguments.37 Different types of arguments have been linked to groups with climate change sceptic views and according to Hulme most of them are connected to the theories above. Some arguments claim that the science is wrong, the explanation for the mistrusting is that people have different beliefs as to what science can and should tell us. So, when science cannot give an exact prediction of the future of climate change some people interpret this based on their expectations of what science can do and that it means that the scientists does not know anything about the outcomes of climate change. Thus, inflicting the belief that climate change is not dangerous, but instead natural. Like science, questions about economic predictions for the enforcements that are trying to prevent further climate change has a way of making people worried. All humans perceive their duty towards others and nature in different ways. This makes culture a huge influencer on people’s attitude about climate change and especially what the fight against climate change is allowed to cost.38
3.2 Previous research regarding Clexit and Climate Scepticism
Clexit is a relatively new organization and information about the group was hard to find. I have not been able to find any scientific articles on Clexit. Some newspapers have mentioned Clexit in reference to Brexit, President Donald Trump’s exit from the Paris Agreement and in updates about the EU concerning the Paris Agreement.39, 40 Regarding the absence of previous research, it is hard to observe Clexit from another perspective than their own and that of a climate change sceptic group. The lack of research about Clexit could be because they are not that well-known or because their opinions, in a global society with a high level of consensus about the causes of climate change and serious focus on solutions, are easily brushed off. The EU takes active steps to promote and highlight climate change challenges and development, 37 Ibid. p. 77-78
38 Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change, p. 74, 109-111 & 144 39 Nuccitelli, D. (August 8, 2016). Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with ‘Clexit’. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per- cent/2016/aug/08/rejection-of-experts-spreads-from-brexit-to-climate-change-with-clexit
40 Richardson, V. (July 19, 2016). U.N. pushes fast-track ratification of Paris climate deal as countries get cold feet. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/19/paris-climate-
agreement-un-pushes-fast-track-ratif/
but after the USA left the Paris Agreement, it looks like Clexit has gained a bit more publicity.Previous research regarding climate change scepticism is quite substantial and many studies have been published in the subject. However, in my study I focus solely on Clexit, their arguments and the previous research on the origins of climate change scepticism.
Therefore, I will shortly summarise some of the research regarding climate scepticism.
How people perceive climate change is not the same in all countries, it often varies due to cultural and economic preconditions. However, during the 2000s, an increased scepticism has been reported. In the article, by Stuart Capstick (et al., 2014) “International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century”, the writers argue that the scepticism existing today is due to media’s misleading representations of facts and the financial crisis of 2008. Surveys done before and between 2009-2013 showed a low scepticism for climate change in most parts of the EU, but there are different trends outside Europe, which show that climate change scepticism has grown since 2009.41
People who express a different view than that of the main population are often regarded in a negative way. Hence, some of them act out as vocal “champions” and spread their views as publicly as they can, while others try to find evidence in science as they mistrust the data provided by other actors or states. However, this difference is generally not distinguished since the public has a way of labelling all those that goes against the unanimous consensus as climate change sceptics. This distinguish is made by Rensburg, he means that there is a difference between sceptics and that they can be divided into two positions, sceptics that are against the unanimous scientific material and those who are sceptical for personal gain and sceptical against all climate change. By dividing this difference, Rensburg believe that more insight about the different opinions of the public will be evident. It is therefore important to not judge all climate change sceptics in the same way, instead study their arguments or the context from which they are brought forth. By trying to define where the arguments are anchored we could better understand the scepticism.42
41 Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N. & Upham, P. (2014).
International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century.
WIREs climate change, vol 6. Doi: 10.1002/wcc.321, p. 35-61
42 Van Rensburg, W. (2015). Climate Change Skepticism: A Conceptual Re-Evaluation, p. 1- 2
4. Method and material
The chosen method for this thesis is argument analysis. The method is based on analysing argument techniques and the key to illuminate climate scepticism, in this case Clexit, is to look at their method of expression. How they argue and how they express their views. The focus was to classify and understand the arguments according to my analysis method.43 In this section descriptions and examples about the method and how I used it will be given. It also contains a more thorough explanation of the method, arguments as to why this method was best suited for this thesis and a review of the chosen material.
4.1 Argument analysis
The argument analysis used in this thesis is based on a qualitative method that aims to make an interpretation of the material selected for the study.By maintaining an inductive approach, through observations based on the source material, empirical generalizations could be drawn.
The method can never be completely uncontaminated, as preconceived hypotheses and assumptions are virtually impossible to prevent.44 But when analysing argumentative texts, the goal is to create a broader viewpoint to be able to see and compare ways of communication with different contexts.45 The purpose for using argument analysis in this study was to look closer at Clexit, at their arguments and the type of method (ethos, logos or pathos) the arguments used. By classifying the method and arguments, I could draw generalisations that could apply for other climate sceptic groups. Generalisations like where the argument origins and which method was generally used. I analysed the arguments as they were but also by placing them into a bigger picture so I could see the connections between climate scepticism and the theories from previous research. This was a descriptive way of analyzing the augmentation, by looking at the whole text and not only at the arguments.46
The argumentation technique is closely related to rhetoric, which was developed during the ancient world, both by the savant Greek and Romans. Rhetoric is the art of speech, and 43 Bergström, G. & Boréus, K. (2012). Textens mening och makt, p. 24
44 Dahlgren, S & Florén, A. (2005). Fråga det förflutna, p. 180–181 45 Bergström, G. & Boréus, K. (2012). Textens mening och makt, p. 91 46 Ibid. p. 92–93
consists of what it is that makes communication effective, how people use different types of language and texts to get their viewpoint through. Three basic concepts in rhetoric is logos, ethos and pathos. These three concepts were therefore used to classify the method of each argument, so I could better understand the arguments from how they were created.
Logos represents the method that tries to appeal to the intellect of people. Texts that uses logos are often objective and free from emotional language. Ethos however, can be defined as the character the speaker is trying to be. For example, by presenting oneself as understanding, strong and kind the speaker can influence his audience to believe in the person in front of them, because the audience is more likely to believe in a trustworthy person. Pathos draws on strong emotions and tries to get its audience passionate about the topic presented. A text using pathos as a method, is full of emotion and loaded words to get sympathy from its readers.47 Pathos and ethos can sometimes be confused with each other, but pathos is easily detected by use of words, meaningful language, harsh words, examples to invoke pity or implied meanings. When detecting ethos, the writer usually tries to speak as someone or something else, usually as a character of knowledge or on behalf of the audience.48
However, rhetoric and argumentation has been more separated throughout the years.
Argument analysis today, is focused on the philosophical aspect and relies heavily on logic.
The interest when studying these texts was to find out their true meaning and see them in their context.49 Although a part of all text analysis is the struggle to be intersubjective, different interpretations are always possible and therefore my reading of the chosen material is methodically presented with the help of my table.50 I created my own table, where I conclude the analysis of the three chosen texts. I composed argument titles so that I could classify the arguments into the most suited one, the titles were constructed from the most frequent arguments. By most frequent I mean the arguments from the chosen texts that were presented many times and that had connections to the theories and previous research, from the previous chapter. After dividing the arguments under the accurate title, I placed them on the row that identified their method.
47 Bergström, G. & Boréus, K. (2012). Textens mening och makt, p. 91–92
48 Ethos, Pathos and Logos Definition and Examples. https://pathosethoslogos.com 49 Ibid. p. 92
50 Ibid. p. 133
4.2 Reasons to use argument analysis in this thesis
The argument analysis classifies as logically as possible the content in texts and therefore, I chose this method to answer my research questions. In this chapter I will explain more thoroughly how I classified the arguments by method and organised them into the created categories.
This method is often used in a certain way, it is often applied according to a particular system, which I did not follow in this thesis. I chose to apply this method in a different way which I think suited this study better. I focused on the content in the arguments so that I could classify them by their used method (logos, ethos or pathos) and categorised them under my own created titles.51 Consequently this displayed how the climate sceptics (from Clexit) express themselves and how they argue. My table contains titles of the arguments most used in the chosen material and classifications of the used method. The created titles were made by me from the most recurring arguments that had connections to the previous research and theories.
They sum up all the arguments from the texts since the arguments are closely related but have different cores, which I separated with the created titles. After systematically going through the arguments and dividing them into the correct categories it was important to critically analyse the content and try to see the bigger picture, this has been done in the last section;
conclusion.52
During the research stage I considered using another method, called narrative analysis, which I also believe would have suited the subject. Like the argument analysis this method is a qualitative analysis, that analyses texts that aim to create a sense of community and understanding. According to researchers, that use the narrative analysis, the stories we tell make society and our role in it more understandable. Using narrative analysis in this study would have given me an insight in the political and cultural society built-up or perceived by Clexit. However, the narrative analysis is a bit more complex than argument analysis. The method leans on exchanging and borrowing ideas from widely separated subjects, which
51 Esaiasson, P. & Gilljam, M. (2012). Metodpraktikan, p. 211 52 Ibid. p. 212
would had made it hard for me to delimitate the study.53 Research using narratives gives you an opportunity to explore human memories and experiences told from their point of view, this can also be done on an organisation like Clexit or on a person speaking for the organisation.
But because my subject focus so much on the argumentation and because the procedures of the narrative method were complicated to follow I decided to stick to argument analysis.
The purpose of this thesis was to illuminate Clexit and their arguments by looking at the method used and understand the origin. The argument analysis was therefore the ultimate tool to understand Clexit’s arguments and how they, as a consequent, could characterise other likeminded groups. With the help of my table I was able to complete the argument analysis and answer my research questions by putting the results of the table together with the context from previous research and theories.
4.3 Materials
Materials used in this thesis was collected from Clexit.net, the organisations own website. The texts: The Clexit Founding Statement, Party Time for Climateers and Swedish Clexit was chosen to give an overview of the arguments made by Clexit as two of these texts were written by the general secretary, Viv Forbes, and the third was written by a regional director member from Sweden, Nils-Axel Mörner. The texts illuminated Clexit’s arguments and because the arguments were frequently reoccurring in all three texts I found it unnecessary to include even more texts from Clexit as they all flowed the same pattern. In my table I looked closer at these three articles, and analysed them based on the arguments most frequent and classified these arguments by their used method; logos, pathos or ethos.
The web page and texts have been reviewed source-critical and I have prioritised texts written by founding members or members with a higher status, based on their title from the member list.54 This made the material trustworthy, when it came to presenting the views of Clexit.
However, I know trusting sources and studies regarding this kind of scepticism, can be sensitive as the subject is very disputed. But efforts have always been made to get as accurate and genuine material as possible, throughout the entire study.55
53 Bergström, G. & Boréus, K. (2012). Textens mening och makt, p. 220–221 54 Clexit.net. Clexit Members. http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clexit- members.pdf
55 Dahlgren, S & Florén, A. (2005). Fråga det förflutna, p. 187
5. Result & Analysis
Under this section the arguments will be classified by method and divided into the correct title; economic arguments, carbon dioxide a non-toxic substance, climate change in form of global warming – natural phenomenon not caused by humans or CO2, the EU/UN wants control and scientific arguments. Each text will start with a short summary of the content and then get more thoroughly explained through the arguments. All arguments are then analysed, to get a sense of their origin, and to conclude each text a table is included (full table in appendix).
5.1 Arguments from “The Clexit Founding Statement”
This text is written by Viv Forbes the founding secretary of Clexit, and it clarifies the ambitions and arguments of the organisation as to why nations should abandon the Paris Agreement, which is hugely promoted by the EU. The text is negative towards the EU as an international bureaucracy and claim that they use the climate change hysteria for their own benefit. Therefore, Clexit thinks a climate exit is in order. The organisation was created after Brexit and inspired by the people of the UK, who voted to leave the EU, because of “the increasingly dictatorial grasp of the EU bureaucracy”56. This text show how arguments by Clexit are used and give a wide variety of arguments. The arguments will be presented continuously in the text that follows. All clear arguments from the text are divided into separate paragraphs where they are analysed and classified.
One of the first arguments is suitable under economic arguments, as this argument concerns the economical sides of the Paris Agreement and the consequences the agreement will have if enforced. “It will strangle the leading economies of the world”57 because of the high taxes on carbon and new climate policies. This argument uses harsh words and displays negativity against the Paris Agreement, the method used in this argument is therefore pathos. The emotional words are being used as a tool to get the reader involved and develop similar feelings as the writer. If the reader gets the same sense of fear for an economic downfall it is 56 Forbes, V. (2016). After Brexit, Clexit: Summary Statement by Viv Forbes, Founding secretary of Clexit, p. 1
57 Ibid. p. 2
more likely that him or her starts to believe in the prospect that Clexit is predicting.
Economical problem is also a delicate subject for a lot of people, mainly because of the difference in society and the economic downfall not that long ago.58
The second argument is based on the policies, that are included in the Paris Agreement, Forbes say that “these destructive policies are already killing real industry”59. The climate change companies are getting benefits and they “thrive on bureaucracy, misdirected government research, law books of costly regulations, never-ending conferences and subsidies for promoters of the failing technologies of renewable energy”60 All these sentences and the whole argument fits under the EU/UN wants control. Mistrust against governments that follow the agreement blindly and science that is directed at the wrong thing is evident. Pathos is also here a clear method to get the message through. Clexit argues for better solutions regarding the now insufficient green energy, and according to them, shutting down industries is not the answer. It makes people suffer and the companies that follow the new policies are the ones getting benefits. The argument is focused on the influence bureaucracies in charge of the Agreement has, such as the UN and the EU. Clexit means that this influence is misdirected, and that people should notice this growing control.
The next argument is also placed under the EU/UN wants control, Clexit claims that governments are exploiting climate change for their own benefit. In this argument, they direct the mistrust against “government media and their allies”61 who are, according to Clexit, taking over the debate and “trumpeting forecasts of doom”62. Anyone with different views are getting
“censored or ridiculed” by the government media. The method used here is pathos. It is easy to assume that Forbes mean the EU when he talks about government, but I think he means media in all the countries that signed and has chosen to follow the agreement. He seems to mean that the EU and UN are somehow controlling these nations media as well, or influence the decisions to highlight the danger of climate change. He uses pathos to make the readers sympathetic for the people that goes against the mainstream science and that are being 58 Schmidt, C. W. (2010). A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism, p. A538-539
59Forbes, V. (2016). After Brexit, Clexit: Summary Statement by Viv Forbes, Founding secretary of Clexit, p. 2
60 Ibid.
6061 Ibid. p. 3
62 Ibid.
61 62
censored. This sounds a lot like Hoffman’s theory, where he talks about people that bring up different views than the unanimous one and are being dubbed as sceptics.63
Following is a few more arguments concerning the EU and Europe. The EU has made huge efforts to make wind and solar power a substitute to fossil fuels. But according to Clexit, this energy is too costly and not reliable. The start of this argument is an economic argument that tries to appeal to the intellect of the readers, by giving examples of green energy and how it works when the energy fails. The green energy is according to Clexit unpredictable and “will produce periodic surges of oversupply which destabilise the grid and temporarily depress electrical prices…, at other times (and every still night), wind and sun will produce minimal or zero power…”64, which will cause high prices and blackouts. It is unavoidable according to the writer, so “governments and/or consumers are forced to fund diesel, gas or coal plants to remain on standby or as spinning reserves until needed”65. Up till now the argument has used logos as a method to make people see reason by using words free from emotion, putting the cost of green energy against the more “reliable” and cheap fossil fuels. But after sentences like “crippling electricity prices (doubled in the past decade)”, “harming consumers (especially the poor)”, “financial crisis for those governments who try to shield some businesses and consumers from the real energy costs”66 the argument turns to pathos and draws on people’s emotions. As explained before, economic problems can cause concern for a lot of people and exploiting this, arguments concerning economy are constantly retuning in this text, both using logos and pathos. When looking back at the theories by Hoffman, economic arguments in reference to a growing control by governments is nothing new and it becomes evident that these arguments have been seen before.67
Another argument against the EU and its renewable energy is about industries relocating because of the new policies enforced in Europe. According to Forbes industries move to countries “not mesmerised by the climate scam”68 and some industries in Europe are even 63 Hoffman, A. (2011). The culture and discourse of climate scepticism, p. 77-78
64Forbes, V. (2016). After Brexit, Clexit: Summary Statement by Viv Forbes, Founding secretary of Clexit, p. 3
65 Ibid.
6566 Ibid.
6667 Hoffman, A. (2011). The culture and discourse of climate scepticism, p. 79 67
6868 Forbes, V. (2016). After Brexit, Clexit: Summary Statement by Viv Forbes, Founding secretary of Clexit, p. 3
resisting the “suicidal industrial policies and even Germany is recognising the danger by introducing subsidies to keep its industrial base”69. This argument connects to the paragraph underneath, which states that “just one long cold European winter… will shock Europe into energy reality and bring the Paris energy follies to an end”70. Both these arguments method is pathos and fits in under the argument the EU/UN wants control. They also relate to the arguments above, concerning the EU. Again, Forbes is talking about climate change as something made up or exaggerated to bring the EU more power. The EU gaining more sovereignty is something that has been discussed in member states, generally in right-wing parties, where discussions about how supranational the EU can get before more countries want to leave have been brought up.71 Therefore, arguments like these are made to make the general public doubt the motives of promoting and implementing new policies through the Paris Agreement as much as the EU has done.72
The text goes on with arguments about countries that think they can profit from the Paris agreement. Countries like Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) sell their carbon credits to countries in the West. Because the energy prices are so high, but these countries “forget that if Western energy stupidity provokes a world financial crisis, the global economy will slump and all nations will suffer”73. This argument is an economic argument that show the reader that the Paris accord cannot be beneficial even if you try to use it to gain profit. The argument is therefore using the method logos, since the text tries to use common sense and Forbes tries to make the economic downfall, as a side-effect of the Paris Agreement, into a fact. So, according to Clexit, the Paris Agreement is negative in all aspects, again using economy to emphasise the argument.
A common and dangerous consequence of climate change is the rising sea levels, but in this text the writer claim that the rise has been equivalent to zero, this claim is based on measurements done by the Australian government. However, there is still talk about rising sea 69
7069 Ibid.
7170 Ibid.
71 Lyons, K. & Darroch, G. (June 27, 2016). Frexit, Nexit or Oexit? Who will be next to leave the EU. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/frexit-nexit-or- oexit-who-will-be-next-to-leave-the-eu
72 Hoffman, A. (2011). The culture and discourse of climate scepticism, p. 79
73 Forbes, V. (2016). After Brexit, Clexit: Summary Statement by Viv Forbes, Founding secretary of Clexit, p. 3
levels, which, according to Forbes, makes small island nations big supporters of the Paris Agreement, since they get economical support “to save them from baseless predictions of rising sea levels”74. This argument fits under scientific arguments and it is logically presented, and uses logos to influence the readers. The argument has a source, for the measurements of the sea level taken in 1993 by the Australian government, which makes the argument more solid, as it demonstrates evidence of its claim, it is however the only argument with an attached source.
This next argument is yet again about the growing bureaucracy of the EU which needs to end, according to Clexit. “Brexit was Britain’s answer to the growing over-reach of EU bureaucracies”75 and that’s why Clexit exists, to uphold “global control through climate hysteria”76. The ambitions of Clexit is to hinder the enforcements of the Paris Agreement and get nations to realise that the EU and UN are “manipulating science in order to justify their dreams to redistribute wealth and revert to the central planning that enslaved and impoverished the old command economies”77. In this section, Forbes argues for countries to abort the agreement by means of shading negative light on institutions like the EU and the UN. The argument uses pathos to underline that the EU/UN wants control and to create mistrust for the governments, Forbes talk about manipulated science and describes the concerns for climate change as hysteria.
Carbon dioxide a non-toxic substance, is this core of this next argument, where Clexit claim that the gas is not dangerous. It is in fact a “natural, non-toxic and beneficial gas which feeds all life on earth”78. Forbes claim that this “war” against carbon dioxide is going to be “seen by future generations as the most misguided mass delusion that the world has ever seen”79. Pathos is strongly visible up until now, the words are harsh and the text plays on emotion.
Forbes is trying to convince the readers that their statements are truer by using words like;
natural, beneficial and a feeder to all life. But after explaining more scientifically why carbon dioxide is an “insignificant player in global warming”80 you get the sense that the argument is
74 Ibid.
75 Ibid. p. 4 76 Ibid.
77 Ibid.
78 Ibid.
79 Ibid.
80 Ibid.
