The Climate Emergency: Extinction Rebellion’s influence on agenda-setting and
climate change frames in parliamentary debates in the U.K.
Image: TOLGA AKMEN/AFP/Getty Images
Hannah van den Hil Student ID: s2094142
Email: h.van.den.hil@umail.leidenuniv.nl Supervisor: Dr. L.D. Cabane
Master Thesis
Crisis and Security Management 29-10-2020
Abstract
Evidence of climate change has been mounting over the last decades, but policy has been slow to follow. In 2019, the U.K. became the first country in the world to declare a climate and ecological emergency. The declaration came on the heels of 10 days of protests that disrupted London. The protests were organised by a relatively new social movement named Extinction Rebellion. They managed to mobilise thousands of people for their acts of civil disobedience. They stated three demands: 1) a climate emergency declaration, 2) legislation for net zero emissions by 2025 and 3) a citizens’ assembly on climate change. This thesis examines to what extent Extinction Rebellion influenced agenda-setting and framing of climate change in the House of Commons in the U.K. between January 1st 2018 and May 1st 2019. Media attention and issue salience among U.K. citizens indicate that they were effective in increasing both. Although these indicators do not always translate to agenda-setting, Extinction Rebellion succeeded. Before the protests were over, MP Edward Miliband voiced all three demands in a parliamentary debate that carried Extinction Rebellion’s name. Several politicians also attributed Extinction Rebellion and the School Strike for Climate protesters with putting climate change (back) on the agenda. The momentum was used by politicians to introduce a net zero bill, although the target was set for 2050 rather than 2025. Extinction Rebellion was less effective in influencing the frames that are used in parliamentary debates to discuss science-related issues.
Table of Contents
List of figures ... 5
1. Introduction ... 6
1.1 Research problem ... 6
1.2 Research objective and research question ... 7
1.3 Academic and societal relevance ... 8
1.4 Reading guide ... 9
2. Theoretical framework ... 10
2.1 Literature review ... 10
Agenda-setting ... 10
Agenda-setting and social movements ... 11
Social movements and framing ... 13
2.2 Theoretical framework ... 14 Agenda-setting ... 14 Framing ... 16 Conclusion ... 18 3. Methodology ... 19 3.1 Design ... 19 3.2 Case selection ... 20 3.4 Agenda-setting ... 21 Media analysis ... 21 Political impact ... 22 3.5 Framing ... 24 Operationalisation of frames ... 25 3.6 Limitations ... 28 4. Agenda-setting ... 30
4.1 Extinction Rebellion agenda-setting ... 30
4.2. Extinction Rebellion framework and strategy ... 31
4.3. Problem Indicators ... 33
4.4. Focusing events ... 34
Extinction Rebellion protests ... 34
Protests as focusing event ... 35
4.5. Feedback ... 36 Media response ... 36 Issue salience ... 40 4.6. Political impact ... 42 Time frame ... 42 Focusing events ... 43
Extinction Rebellion demands ... 44
Climate as a crisis ... 45
5. Framing ... 50
5.1. Extinction Rebellion message framing ... 50
Diagnostic framing ... 50 Prognostic framing ... 51 Motivational framing ... 52 5.2. Results ... 53 Conservative/Labour comparison ... 56 5.3. Conclusion ... 57 6. Discussion ... 58 7. Conclusion ... 60 References ... 62
Appendix 1: Codebook agenda-setting ... 79
Appendix 2: Codebook framing ... 81
Appendix 3: Headlines The Times, The Daily Mail & The Guardian ... 83
Appendix 4; Results content analysis agenda-setting ... 86
List of Figures
Figure 1; Theoretical framework ... 17
Figure 2. Overview of the selected debates. ... 20
Figure 3. Codebook agenda-setting (see appendix 1 for full codebook) ... 24
Figure 4. Articles mentioning Extinction Rebellion ... 36
Figure 5. Articles mentioning climate protest ... 37
Figure 6. Articles mentioning one of the three demands ... 38
Figure 7. Articles mentioning climate emergency ... 38
Figure 8. Articles mentioning climate change, including and excluding articles mentioning 'protest' or 'rebellion' ... 39
Figure 10. Climate change or global warming ... 40
Figure 11. Issue salience among U.K. citizens ... 41
Figure 12. Timeline ... 43
Figure 13. Climate activism mentioned ... 44
Figure 14. The three demands in the debates ... 45
Figure 15. Climate conceptualised as a crisis ... 46
Figure 16. Combative and crisis language per political party ... 47
Figure 17. Extinction Rebellion and protest mentioned per political party ... 48
Figure 18. Emergency declaration mentioned per political party ... 48
Figure 19. Frame composition of the debates (excl. 'other') ... 53
Figure 20. Frame composition of the debates (excl. ‘other’) ... 55
Figure 21. Distribution of frame use over political party ... 56
Figure 22. Codebook agenda-setting (full) ... 79
Figure 23. Codebook framing (full) ... 81
Figure 24. Subject of the headlines that day ... 83
Figure 25. Frequency word(s) appeared in parliamentary debate ... 86
Figure 26. Weighted results (frequency/word count) ... 86
Figure 27. Use of words over time ... 87
Figure 28. Words divided by party ... 87
Figure 29. Frequency use of frames per debate ... 88
1. Introduction
This chapter outlines the research problem that is the basis of the thesis and states the research objective with the research question and two accompanying sub-questions. It also discusses the academic and societal relevance and provides a reading guide.
1.1 Research problem
Climate change is a unique policy problem. Over the last few decades, a growing body of scientific evidence has warned the world of climate change. Scientists agree that we have a short window of time to make radical changes or we will reach a devastating limit. Droughts, floods, storms and rising sea levels will result in famine, refugee crises, diseases, extensive damages to infrastructures and all will have significant economic repercussions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC], 2018). However, policy has been slow to follow. This discrepancy has been attributed to different factors; the power of corporations, the lack of visual feedback from the emissions of greenhouse gasses, the distance of the problem in both space and time and narratives that question the scientific evidence (van der Linden, Maibach & Leiserowitz, 2015; Mooney, 2006).
Then, the U.K. became the first country in the world to declare a climate and ecological emergency. The declaration came on the heels of 10 days of protests that disrupted London, organised by climate activist group Extinction Rebellion. The group transformed into a social movement and managed to mobilise thousands of people for their acts of civil disobedience. They demanded three things: 1) a climate emergency declaration, 2) legislation for net zero emissions by 2025, and 3) a citizens’ assembly on climate change. This thesis examines to what extent Extinction Rebellion influenced agenda-setting and framing of climate change in the House of Commons in the U.K..
It is often assumed that policy ideas originate from “usual suspects” such as political parties and think tanks (Beland, 2016, p. 238). However, Beland (2016) argued that social movements are also a potential source of ideational innovation (p. 238). Although several scholars have recognised that social movements can influence public policy, the required conditions are uncertain (Harris & Morris, 2017, p. 94). As public policy and social movement literature fail to incorporate one another, there is a link missing in our understanding of how social movements influence policy and vice versa (Meyer, 2003; Ameta 2014). Some studies have dedicated their resources to understanding this dynamic (Jenness & Ingram 2005;
Baumgartner & Mahoney, 2005; Ingram & Ingram, 2005; Mamudu et al., 2014). This thesis builds on these efforts to understand how social movements influence the policy process by examining to what extent Extinction Rebellion has influenced agenda-setting and framing of climate change in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. It pays particular attention to the Climate Emergency Declaration.
1.2 Research objective and research question
Although the climate emergency declaration does not impose any legal obligations on the government, it is a unique course of action. It is the first time a national government formally acknowledges that it “recognises climate change, the urgency of the situation and that the U.K.
is set to miss its carbon emission targets” (Brown, 2019).
Just weeks before the declaration, traffic in London ground to a halt. On April 15th, protests organised by social movement organisation Extinction Rebellion begun. These protests blocked bridges accessing the capital, major intersections and symbolic venues to raise awareness for the ‘climate emergency’. The streets flooded with young and old, dancing, singing, talking. Among the protesters, spirits were high, and the atmosphere was light. Among commuters, not so much. The protests continued for ten days and disrupted the lives of “many
hundreds of thousands of hard-working Londoners” (BBC News, 2019b). This thesis examines
the impact these protests had on parliament by posing a research question and two sub-questions:
To what extent has Extinction Rebellion influenced agenda-setting and framing of climate change in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom?
Sub-question 1; To what extent did Extinction Rebellion contribute to the agenda-setting of
climate change and in particular of the climate and ecological emergency?
Sub-question 2; To what extent did Extinction Rebellion influence how climate change was
framed in political debate between November 2018 and May 2019?
The first sub-question tries to determine if and to explain how Extinction Rebellion influenced the agenda-setting of climate change. The second sub-question examines in what way the issue got on the political agenda. By examining if Extinction Rebellion influenced the frame
composition of the debates, the thesis explores if the social movement had the ability to affect in what state the issue arrived on the agenda. To answer the first sub-question, the thesis examines news coverage of the protests, issue salience and transcripts of parliamentary debates on climate change.
1.3 Academic and societal relevance
The consequences are harrowing. Scientists already hypothesised climate change in the 19th century (Fourier, 1837, p.16). In 1960, the evidence became increasingly convincing, and it has been substantiated ever since (Keeling, 1961; IPPC, 2007, p. 98). However, policy action has been slow to follow. Scholars have attributed it partially to framing tactics originating in 90’s US, where Republican strategists steered the conversation away from accountability and mitigative action, towards the ‘lack of scientific certainty’ and the ‘unfair financial burden’ climate policies would impose on Americans (Mooney, 2006).
Subsequent public scepticism on the validity of climate change cleared a path for the public and private sphere to continue on the path towards global warming. Risk of water stress, food scarcity, poverty, drought, fires and plant and insect species extinction increase the closer the world comes to 1.5ºC global warming (IPPC, 2018, pp. 7-9) are the result. To stop the temperature rise, it is imperative that policymakers increase their efforts to combat climate change. Climate policy is essential to the development of renewable energy and reducing emissions. Economies need to change across the board, with governments need to subsidise renewable energy, sustainable housing and rebalance the burden of climate change between the poor and wealthy, between developed and developing countries. Developed countries are the biggest polluters while often developing bear the brunt of climate consequences (Gibson, Head, Gill & Waitt., 2011, p. 3; IPCC, 2018, p. 9). With evidence mounting, but policy slow coming around the world, citizens are demanding policy action from their governments. In recent year, there have been several large-scale protests around the world (Laville & Watts, 2019; Bir, 2019). It is essential to society that we get a better understanding of how policy is elevated to the decision agenda, how social movements can impact the political arena and how climate change can receive a more prominent spot on the political agenda.
Although several scholars have recognised social movements can influence public policy, the required conditions are uncertain (Harris & Morris, 2017, p. 94). Scholars have devoted their attention to the relationship between social movements, protests and
agenda-setting, but mostly in the United States-setting (Andrews, 1997; McAdam & Su, 2002; Baumgartner & Mahoney, 2005; Burstein & Sausner, 2005; King, Cornwall and Dahin, 2005; King, Bentele and Soule, 2007). It is crucial to examine how other political structures react to similar pressures if we want to theorise on conditions that make a social movement effective. Otherwise, generalisability remains low. Furthermore, although there are many studies on the impact of media frames on mass audiences, there are few studies that assess how framing impacts decision elites (Wolfe, Jones and Baumgartner, 2013, p. 184). How an issue is framed in politics impacts what policy outcomes are considered (Nisbet & Huge, 2006). Therefore, it is important to examine if a social movement can influence how politicians frame a particular issue in parliamentary debates. However, social movement literature focusses on what social movement frames exist and what makes them effective in motivating their public audience (Benford & Snow, 2000). Scholars have yet to examine if social movements can influence which frames politicians employ in parliamentary debates.
1.4 Reading guide
The thesis is divided into seven chapters. After this introductory chapter, the theoretical chapter follows. It consists of a literature review on agenda-setting, social movements and framing, and it discusses the theoretical framework of the thesis. The third chapter outlines the methodological approach. It explains the research design, case selection and the methodological approach for the agenda-setting and framing analysis. It also touches upon the limitations of the study. The fourth chapter is the agenda-setting analysis which discusses Extinction Rebellion’s framework, strategies and goals. Then it analyses to what extent they influenced the agenda-setting of climate change by looking at their impact on news coverage, public opinion and political debate. The fifth chapter is the frame analysis. First, Extinction Rebellion’s frames are examined and categorised according to Nisbet’s typology on science-related issues. Then, the results of the frame analysis of the parliamentary debates are discussed to examine if Extinction Rebellion influenced which frames politicians invoked in the debates. The sixth chapter is a discussion of the research and its limitations. The thesis ends with a conclusion on whether Extinction Rebellion was able to get climate change (back) on the agenda and if they influenced which frames in politicians adopted in parliamentary debates.
2. Theoretical framework
This second chapter explores the literary body of knowledge that exists on agenda-setting, the relationship between agenda-setting and social movements and the relationship between social movements and framing. Then, it presents the theoretical framework for the thesis.
2.1 Literature review Agenda-setting
Agenda-setting is based on the landmark study of McCombs and Shaw (1972). They examined the relationship between what participants considered to be the most important issue for the 1968 American election and what the media was reporting as the most important. They found that mass media has the ability to influence public opinion. Agenda-setting theory assumes people base their attitudes and decisions on considerations that are most accessible (Scheufele & Tversky, 2007, p. 11). So, “the ease in which instances or associations could be brought to
mind” (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973, p. 208) impacts attitudes. The more salient an issue is,
the more important it will be considered. Since then, agenda-setting theorists’ have tried to determine what other factors can explain why certain policy issues rise to the governmental agenda, while others are overlooked (Pralle, 2009, p.783).
Kingdon (2003), Downs (1972) and Cobb and Elder (1983) argue that it is not necessarily the objective state of a problem that makes a public problem rise and fall, but rather governmental or public agendas (Pralle, 2009, p.782). Cobb and Elder (1983) identified three levels in the agenda universe that are present in a democracy (p.85-86). First, the systematic agenda, which contains all issues that the political elite believe are within their purview and deserve public attention. An issue advances to the institutional agenda if it is “successfully elevated” (Birkland, 2007, p.65). Decision-makers will then consider these issues, and if they decide to act upon them, the decision agenda is reached (Cobb & Elder, p.85-86). It is only a highly selective group of issues that reach this stage, as space on the agenda is decidedly limited. Hence, interest groups and institutions are forced to fight for their issue to be represented (Birkland, p.65).
Scholars have conceptualised the ebb and flow of issues on and off the decision agenda in different ways. Some believe issues go through attention cycles, where “waves of enthusiasm
sees the downcycle of attention as nearing the end of an issue-attention cycle (p. 40), while Baumgartner and Jones (1993) believe the issue still slowly advances but is restrained by factors such as counter mobilisation and bounded rationality (p.5-9). Kingdon believes windows of opportunities open up for certain periods in time, which close relatively quickly (Kingdom, 2011, pp. 166). Policy entrepreneurs who wish to make use of these windows need to be prepared and ready to take immediate action once a window opens up. Pralle (2009) argues that issues cannot be starkly on or off the agenda, but rather occupy a point on a continuum. She observed that climate change, for instance, “can be considered ‘on’ the agenda
of many democratic countries, but its position on these agendas varies across time and space.”
(p.783).
Regardless of how the ebb and flow is conceptualised, most agenda-setting theorists agree that certain factors promote issue attention. Attention to the issue increases the chance of it reaching the political agenda. Two widely accepted theories that address issue attention from an agenda system perspective are the multiple streams theory by Kingdon (2003) and Jones and Baumgartner’s theory of punctuated equilibrium. Kingdon advanced widely accepted factors that promote issue attention, namely “problem indicators”, “focusing events” and “feedback” (Kingdom, 2011). Similarly, Jones and Baumgartner theorise ‘triggering events’ and ‘information feedback’ are essential in advancing an issue to the decision agenda (Liu, Lindquist, Vedlitz, 2011, p. 406).
Agenda-setting and social movements
There is a debate on whether social movements can elevate issues. Often, the impact of social movements on public policy is assessed in light of protests. Although protests are usually not as severe in character and impact as disasters, it could be argued that they can also serve as focusing events. Undoubtedly, protests are effective in bringing their issue in the public eye. If the protests are large and disruptive enough to gain prolonged media attention, the underlying issue can become more salient, much like after an oil spill or hurricane (Vliegenthart et al., 2016, p. 850).
Many attribute voting rights for women to the women’s suffrage movement in the United Kingdom (King et al., 2005, p. 1230) and the end of legalised racial discrimination and racial segregation to the American civil rights movement (Blanchett, Brantlinger & Shealey, 2005, p. 66). However, the dynamics of these processes are complex and opaque. For instance, Andrews (1997) found that the response of the opposing party matters greatly for the
achievement of social movement objectives. The immediate impact was: the greater the harassment, attacks and arrests of protesters, the greater the mobilisation (Andrews, 1997, p. 807). However, in the long run, he found a correlation between the violent response to protests and the limited election of African Americans to local and state offices (Andrews, 1997, p. 812). The violent resistance actually decreased acquisition of political power by African Americans.
In recent years, the study of the relation between social movements and political influence has gained momentum. There is significant debate on if social movements have a political impact, and if they do, how. McAdam and Su (2002) hypothesised that the anti-Vietnam war movement would have had an impact on U.S. Congress due to the intensity of the movement. Yet, they found little evidence of policy impact (McAdam & Su, 2002, p. 718). The lack of impact was later explained by Burstein and Sausner (2005) as a discrepancy between perceived intensity and actual intensity of the movement (p. 414). They argued that the number of protests was actually relatively low and suggested that the relationship between policy change and collective action might not be linear (Burstein & Sausner, 2005, p. 416). Perhaps what is important is whether a social movement can draw the attention of politicians to the desired issue (Burstein & Sausner, 2005, p. 417).
Baumgartner and Mahoney (2005) analysed whether social movements impacted the political agenda in the United States. They discovered that the number of social movement organisations affected the number of congressional hearings on the subject (Baumgartner & Mahoney, 2005). Interestingly, Soule, McAdam, McCarthy and Su (1999) discovered a reversed causal relation between protests and political attention. The more attention women’s issues received in Congress, the more protests arose. King, Cornwall and Dahin (2005) studied where precisely in the policy cycle social movements have the most impact. They found that social movements have a better chance to influence the agenda-setting stage than the policy decision or implementing stage. So, they are most effective at the beginning of the policy cycle. Scholars have also studied the influence of protest on U.S. Congress. King, Bentele and Soule (2007) learned that an increase in protests resulted in an increase in congressional hearings in the United States.
Unfortunately, all these studies were conducted in the U.S. That is why Walgrave and Vliegenthart (2012) choose to study the protest-agenda relationship in the Belgium parliament. They demonstrated that protests influenced agenda-setting there as well. They found that demonstrations had direct and indirect impacts on the policy agenda in Belgium (Walgrave &
while mass media coverage indirectly impacts agenda-setting (Walgrave & Vliegenthart, 2012, p. 151). Mass media covers the protests while simultaneously increasing attention to the underlying issue. They observed that articles that did not mention the protests but did discuss the underlying issue also increased. This media signal reached politicians with a delay (Walgrave & Vliegenthart, 2012, p. 152). So, the protests can serve as focusing events by increasing the informational feedback that the public and politicians receive.
Social movements and framing
Until the 1980s, social movements were seen simply as carriers of ideas and meaning. This ideation was believed to “grow automatically [out of] our of structural arrangements, unanticipated events, or existing ideologies” (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 613). More recent conceptions of social movement dynamics views movements as meaning creators, rather than mere messengers. Social movements produce and maintain ideas and meaning, which they mobilize in an attempt to bring about social change. From this perspective, they are an essential agent in the “politics of signification” together with the state, local government and the media (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 613). This meaning construction is often referred to as ‘framing’.
In 1930, Heider proposed that the world was too complex for humans to understand completely. For that reason, the individual attempts to “infer underlying causal relations from sensory information” (Schuefele, 2000, p. 300). When individuals were shown clips with abstract movements of geometrical shapes, they attributed human characteristics and motivations to the movements and the shapes (Heider & Simmel, 1944). Simply put, humans link the information they do not understand to information they already have. They interpret new information according to the knowlegde of the world they already possess.
Goffman (1974) reached the same conclusion. He also argued that individuals classify and interpret their experiences to understand the world. Therefore, how they respond to new information is depended on their previous life experiences (Schuefele, 2000, p. 301). Goffman called these “primary frameworks” or “schematas of interpretation” (Goffman, 1974, p. 24). We consider information in view of semantic roles, the relationship between these roles and the relationship between frames (Lakoff, 2010, p. 71). These unconscious structures are frames. New information we receive is identified and assessed in light of this frame, after which meaning is derived from it. Essentially, frames are the coatrack on which we hang new information.
So, movement literature approaches framing as the construction of meaning. How a social movement frames its message gives meaning to its objectives, is essential to successfully creating a support base and starting a public conversation, and to eventually achieve the desired policy change. They argue that for a movement to have policy impact, it must employ diagnostic, prognostic and motivational frames (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 632). These frames diagnose a problem, attribute blame, propose a solution and provide a strong rationale for why people should join the movement (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 632).
Frames are also important in political debate. Framing impacts how an issue is perceived. Audiences need frames to make sense of an issue, and frames are how audiences discuss and consider information. As a consequence, frames also impact policy decisions. Experts use frames to simplify technical information, while policy makers rely on frames to decide on which policy course to take (Nisbet, 2009, p.15). It is not equivalent to spinning information for personal gain. Although some certainly use it in this way, framing is essentially about highlighting a specific aspect of an issue to communicate (new) information (Nisbet, 2009, p.15). Highlighting specific aspects can reshape the way a person thinks about an issue or event (Howe & Wilkes, 2019, p. 248). For example, politicians can frame a rise in crime as a need to “combat crime” with more stringent action, requiring more police and harsher punishments. They can also frame it as an issue of poverty or education. In that case, more funding for social programs and education would be the appropriate course of action. Although both accounts start with the same problem and both can be considered true, framing impacts which policies are implemented. Power in policymaking is, therefore, partially derived from the capacity to influencing the media to portray the issue favourable (Nisbet & Huge, 2006, p. 3).
So, how a social movement frames its message not only impacts how effective they are in terms of motivating their audience but may also determine in what state an issue reaches the agenda. In turn, that could impact policy outcome.
2.2 Theoretical framework Agenda-setting
Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Theory (MST) argues policy windows open up that enable an issue to gain enough traction to reach the decision agenda. These windows of opportunity open when the “the stars line up” for a certain period in time and close relatively quickly (Kingdon,
2011, p.166). The stars line up when three streams converge; the problem stream, the policy stream and the political stream. Policy entrepreneurs who wish to make use of these windows need to be prepared and ready to take immediate action once a window opens up. Drawing upon the theory, this thesis focusses on the problem stream. The problem stream concerns the recognition of the problem. Kingdon recognises three ways of recognition, namely problem indicators, focusing events and feedback. The thesis analyses if Extinction Rebellion was effective in demanding attention of policy makers and opening a window of opportunity for climate policy by examining problem these indicators, focusing events and feedback.
Problem indicators do exactly that; they indicate there is a problem. It can be a direct experience, such as higher temperatures or an increase in bush fires. An individual can feel, see, experience the indicator. Often though, indicators are abstract and quantitative (Liu et al., 2011, p. 406). This is especially true for climate change. Rising water levels, CO2 emissions, land depletion and long-term temperature trends are invisible to the eye but can be measured with quantitative data.
Focusing events, (Kingdon 2003; Birkland 1998, 2007;) triggering events (Birkland 1998, 2004) and information shocks (Jones & Baumgartner, 2005) are events that “push that
concern above the noise threshold of other issues” (Liu et al., 2011, p. 406). They grab the
attention of decision makers (Liu et al., 2011, p. 405). Disasters and crises such as oil spills and hurricanes are all good examples of focusing events. When there is an oil spill or a hurricane strikes, climate change may become more salient and be a high priority, only to fade away when a different issue takes up the attention of politicians (Pralle, 2009, pp. 784-785). Although regular focusing events might directly impact public opinion, focusing events in the form of protests need the intervention of the media to be successful in their agenda-setting efforts (Vliegenthart et al., 2016).
Feedback (Kingdon 2003), or information feedback (Jones & Baumgartner 2005) is the feedback that policy elites receive. Although some feedback finds its way to policy makers through internal structures such as daily experiences, most comes via the external route (Liu et al., 2011, p. 407). An extensive body of literature has been devoted to the multiple complex feedback loops that exist in modern political systems (Wolfe et al., 2013, pp. 179-180). These non-recursive interactions make cause-and-effect relations hard to determine (Wolfe et al., 2013, pp. 179-180). However, media attention and public opinion are two feedback loops that can be examined. Politicians are generally considered rational and goal-oriented actors (Jones, 1999, p. 318). Assuming a policy-maker’s goal is to stay in office, which is dependent on electoral success, their aim is to get as many votes as possible come election time (Strøm and
Müller, 1999, p. 25). The public mood then becomes a good indicator of whether politicians will grant an issue a place on the political agenda (Giger & Klüver, 2012, p. 3). This thesis examines if Extinction Rebellion was able to influence the feedback of media attention and issue salience by altering problem indicator communication and creating focusing events.
Framing
This thesis examines not only if Extinction Rebellion influenced agenda-setting of climate change, but also if they influenced framing of climate change in parliamentary debates. The news not only alters if an issue is discussed, but also how the issue discussed. The media
characterises an issue which has an impact on how the issue is understood by the audience
(Scheufele & Tversky, 2007, p. 11). Communicators deliver information in such a way that it resonates with schemas that already exist among the audience (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). It is an essential part of relating a story. The frames provide the framework for the audience to comprehend the story and is therefore important to sense-making. Research has found that how an issue is framed in the media, impacts the cognitive responses of individuals (Dardis et al., 2008) So, public opinion can be influenced by media framing. That is why media studies regard framing as “an unavoidable reality of the communication process” (Nisbet, 2009, p.15)
Nisbet (2010) identified eight frames that dominate science-related issues in political debate in both the US and Europe (p. 49). Biotechnology, nuclear energy, teachings of evolution and climate change are all discussed according to Nisbets’ typology (Nisbet, 2010, p. 52). These issues are often technical and abstract, which means their implications are hard to grasp for the general public. It also means that it lends itself well to framing, because there is considerable room for interpretation (Stecula & Merkley, 2019, p. 2). In order for audiences to ‘connect the mental dots’ the following frames are used: 1) economic development and
competitiveness, 2) conflict and strategy 3) pandora’s box, 4) social progress, 5) scientific and technical uncertainty, 6) public accountability and governance, 7) morality and ethics and 8) middle path/alternative way. These frames are not exclusive to a specific pro or anti argument.
Scholars agree that individuals can still share an interpretive frame, while disagreeing on the issue (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989, p. 3) For example, individual A might argue that climate policy is a significant burden on citizens, with a drop in employment rates. Individual B might argue the opposite, that it is in fact attractive for citizens as it creates green jobs. They disagree, but both frame climate change as an economic issue. So, anti, pro and neutral arguments all exist in the same frame (Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards & Rucht, 2002, p. 106).
In an attempt to determine which frames Extinction Rebellion emphasises most, their core message has to be identified. Relying on the theoretical framework of Benford & Snow (2000) on social movement framing, their diagnostic, prognostic and motivational frames are identified. Adherents of a social movement ‘negotiate a shared understanding’ of a problematic condition in society that requires change, who or what to ascribe the blame to, determine an alternative path and a rationale for others to act (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 615). Diagnostic,
prognostic and motivational frames are the result of these negotiations and key to
understanding the social movement.
The diagnostic frame identifies the problem and then attributes this problem to something or someone by focusing blame and/or responsibility (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 616). This is often achieved by dichotomous framing, called “boundary” or “adversarial” framing (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 616). Constructing an ‘us vs. them’-narrative creates movement protagonists and antagonists. The prognostic frame puts forward a solution, or a plan of attack and the strategy for achieving the end goal (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 616). Clear diagnostic and prognostic framing increase chances for achieving policy change (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 632). The motivational frame encourages people to engage in collective action (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 617). This frame focusses on the “agency” issue of social movements (Gamson, 1995, p. 90). It provides supporters with compelling reasons to join the movement or continue their participation (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 617; Howe & Wilkes, 2019, p. 250). Essentially, it provides motive for participation.
Feedback Frames Indicators Focusing events (protest) News Public opinion Politicians Politicians Parliamentary agenda Frames in parliamentary debate
Conclusion
Drawing upon Kingdon’s problem stream, this thesis will examine how problem indicators and focusing events influenced parliamentary debate. Problem indicators and focusing events alone do not guarantee a place on the policy agenda (Entwistle & Enticott, 2007, p. 194). However, they have the ability to shape the media and issue salience of the public, which can influence politicians as they use these outputs as feedback. So, for the agenda-setting analysis the thesis first examines if the media and public agendas were influenced by Extinction Rebellion indicators and focusing events. Then, it will look at the political debates to see if they translated into a spot on the policy agenda.
For the framing analysis the thesis relies on the framework of Benford & Snow to identify the core messages of Extinction Rebellion, looking at the diagnostic, prognostic and
motivational frames. Once the core frames are identified, they are categorised according to
Nisbet’s typology. Nisbets’s typology applies to science-related debates, including the climate change debate. The typology consists of: 1) economic development and competitiveness, 2)
conflict and strategy 3) pandora’s box, 4) social progress, 5) scientific and technical uncertainty, 6) public accountability and governance, 7) morality and ethics and 8) middle path/alternative way.
3. Methodology
This chapter will explain the methodological approach. It will first explain the general design, which will be explained in more detail in the subsequent paragraphs. First, the case selection specifies which sources were selected and why. The agenda-setting paragraphs expand on the media and content analysis for agenda-setting. The paragraphs on framing explain the coding rules for the content analysis for framing and operationalise Nisbet’s frames. Finally, the limitations of this thesis are discussed.
3.1 Design
The thesis is a case study that relies on a mixed-methods approach. It is divided into two sections, which have two different objectives. The first section focusses on agenda-setting and takes an explanative approach. It uses media analysis, data on issue salience and content analysis to determine if and explain how Extinction Rebellion influenced agenda-setting in the House of Commons. Media coverage has been identified as a vital component in the effectiveness of protests as agenda-setting tool, particularly for environmental issues (Vliegenthart et al., 2016). Analysing Extinction Rebellion’s agenda-setting capabilities without analysing the media would result in an explanative gap. Similarly, issue salience of the public is an indicator of elite behaviour (Wolfe et al., 2013, pp. 184) and can reflect if a focusing event made an impact on the general public. The content analysis for the agenda-setting will consist of a word count of significant words.
The second section takes an exploratory approach to see if the agenda-setting, in this case, is accompanied by frame transference. Here, the main analysis is a content analysis. This kind of content analysis also does not allow an evaluation of attitudes. However, the objective is to merely assess if there is a change in frame composition after Extinction Rebellion action. As frames are considered to encompass all negative, positive and neutral arguments (Nisbet, 2009, p.18), there is no need to distinguish between different attitudes.
A content analysis is a systematic approach that lends itself well to the analysis of the parliamentary documents. Raw data is transformed into single units of analysis, which are assigned a category. The frequency with which a category appears is then interpreted. For the agenda-setting section, certain data is examined both qualitatively and quantitively. References to Extinction Rebellion, their objectives, and the protests are examined both qualitatively and quantitively. These categories are the most essential to the research objective because they
reveal a direct impact on the debates. The other categories are examined quantitively in the form of a word count to discover any surrounding factors. The content analysis on the frames is examined quantitively to discover underlying patterns. Although frequency in a text does not communicate attitudes, it does convey the focus of attention to issues, which is the objective of this research (Holsti, 1969, p. 96).
3.2 Case selection
The central unit of analysis is the parliamentary conversation on climate change. To narrow the scope, parliamentary debates of the House of Commons were selected via Hansard that contained the word “climate” in the title and took place between January 1st, 2018 and May 1st, 2019. Debates of the House of Commons were selected because it is their task to create primary legislation. They propose and vote on legislation, which makes their duties representative of the governmental agenda. The house is publicly elected, which makes them more susceptible to public pressures. “Climate” was decided upon as search word for Hansard as it is the most direct and neutral option, that represents the issue and the frames equally. I opted for the specific time window because Extinction Rebellion was officially established on October 31st, 2018, and the House of Commons declared a Climate Emergency on May 1st 2019. The months before the establishment of Extinction Rebellion functions as an informal baseline. This selection has led to the selection of the following ten debates;
Figure 2. Overview of the selected debates.
Date Debate Location
1. 01-05-2018 Oral Answers: Paris Climate Change Agreement Commons Chamber 2. 13-11-2018 Climate Change: Extreme Weather Events Westminster Hall 3. 16-01-2019 UN Climate Change Conference: Government
Response
Westminster Hall
4. 22-01-2019 Oral Answers: Climate Change: International Co-operation
Commons Chamber
5. 23-04-2019 Climate Action and Extinction Rebellion Commons Chamber
6. 23-04-2019 Climate Change Policy Commons Chamber
7. 30-04-2019 Oral Answers: Climate Change: Discussions with DEFRA
8. 30-04-2019 Climate Change (Net Zero U.K. Carbon Account) Commons Chamber 9. 01-05-2019 Oral Answers: Climate Change Commons Chamber 10. 01-05-2019 Environment and Climate Change Commons Chamber
Extinction Rebellion’s website was taken as the primary source for examining Extinction Rebellion material. It comes closest to an official Extinction Rebellion manifesto. As Extinction Rebellion is an open movement, but with specific values and a specific message, they use their website to communicate them to their audience. Websites are widely accessible, and anyone looking for more information on the movement will most likely end up on their webpage. For first-hand accounts and Extinction’s view on the protests, the thesis also relies on their published official handbook: This is not a drill: An Extinction Rebellion handbook (2019).
For the media analysis and issue salience, secondary sources were selected. Three papers were selected to achieve a balanced result in political orientation. The Daily Mail is a popular press newspaper and the second highest-selling paper in the U.K. (Mayhew, 2019). The Guardian and The Times are both broadsheets and considered more quality press (Okon Ikon, 2016, p. 58). The Guardian has a left orientation, while The Times is considered centre-right paper (Wells, 2017; Smith, 2017). For issue salience, the thesis relies on data produced by Ipsos Mori and YouGov. They are both established and renowned research data and public opinion groups. They poll U.K. adults on what they consider the most important issues facing Britain on a continuous basis, and their methods have been subjected to academic examination (Twyman, 2008; (Jennings & Wlezien, 2011, p. 552). Data from these groups is used more frequently in peer-reviewed articles (Millie, 2008; Dennison & Goodwin, 2015; Dennison, 2018).
3.4 Agenda-setting Media analysis
First, all headlines between April 15th, 2019 and April 26th, 2019 were collected to explore how often the April protests made the front page. Often, readers will only glance at the headlines, and only a small percentage reads full articles (Dor, 2003, p. 720). To draw people into reading or buying the paper, editors carefully construct headlines (Dor, 2003, p. 696). So, subjects for headlines are selected because editors believe they interest its readers and they
reach a larger audience than full articles. Therefor, a headline is a good indicator of what is considered the most interesting news of the day and an indicator of issue salience, as it is read by the largest group. The front pages were tracked down through a search on twitter. Most are available on the official twitter accounts of the three newspapers. The ones that were not on these accounts were tracked down with the handle #tomorrowspapertoday. There are several users who receive the front pages of papers the evening before distribution and publish them online. The selected users are BBC employers. The subjects of the headlines were compiled in an overview (see appendix 3), and Extinction Rebellion subjects were highlighted. The users are documented in the references and the footnotes of the appendix.
Subsequently, a Factiva search was performed on the three papers. All articles between October 1st, 2018 and May 1st, 2019 were selected to reflect the period between the start of Extinction Rebellion on October 31st, 2018 and the declaration of a climate emergency on May 1st, 2019. They were searched for mentions of ‘Extinction Rebellion’, ‘Climate emergency’, ‘citizens’ assembly (and extinction)’ ‘net zero 2025’, ‘Climate protests’, ‘Climate change’ to see if Extinction Rebellion, their protests and their demands for a climate emergency, citizens’ assembly and net zero 2025 legislation generated media attention. ‘Climate change’ was used in two searches. One included articles mentioning ‘protest’ or ‘rebellion’, while the other excluded any articles mentioning either term to examine if the April protests only resulted in articles about the protests themselves, or if they also led to an increase in articles solely on climate change. All results were filtered for identical duplicates. The results were then graphed to get a temporal overview of the change in media output. Results and graphs by other studies into the representation of climate change and global warming in all U.K. newspapers over a twenty-year period supplement the results.
Political impact
A content analysis was performed on the selected debates to quantify the use of selected words that relate to Extinction Rebellion in an effort to determine if they impacted the parliamentary conversation. The unit of analysis were single words, and only words that were decided upon beforehand were coded. All selected words (see figure 3) were located through a lexical search. Then, all words were evaluated to see if they referred to the intended meaning of the words and coded accordingly. Once the coding was completed, the frequency of the words in that document was divided by the total word count of the document to give a percentage. The
weighted numbers allowed for a comparison of the debates, even though their lengths varied significantly.
All references to ‘Extinction Rebellion’ were coded as such. References to their three demands were also coded (Extinction Rebellion U.K., n.d.-d). To track Extinction’s first demand for a climate emergency throughout the debates, all references to ‘declar’ were coded as ‘climate emergency declaration’ if they also had ‘climate’ and ‘emergency’ somewhere in the same sentence. All references that refer to the second demand for net zero emissions by 2025 was coded as 2025. A search for 2025 revealed other targets, such as financial targets within the COP24 framework. These references were excluded. Only if the 2025 referred to net zero emissions they were accepted. Later, the code 2050 was added, as 2025 was considered unrealistic in the debates. Net zero remained on the agenda, but with 2050 as goal – so the code was added. The third demand for a ‘Citizens’ assembly’ was coded as such.
Any references to protests in general were coded to see if any focusing events translated to parliamentary debate. These include: ‘protest’, ‘demonstration’, ‘demonstrators’, ‘strike’, ‘striking’, ‘strikers’, ‘activists’ and ‘activism’.
‘Greta Thunberg’ and ‘schoolchildren’ are also included in the analysis. Although Greta is the figurehead of her own movement (School strike for Climate), she gave a speech at the establishment of Extinction Rebellion. Her presence and active input into the Extinction Rebellion movement aligned their efforts, but it would not give a fair representation to include them in the ‘protest’. However, they should be included as they also might have influenced agenda-setting of climate change.
Furthermore, all references to ‘emergency’, ‘crisis’, ‘disaster’ and ‘catastrophe’ were coded as crisis synonyms. The code was selected to reflect Extinction Rebellion conceptualisation of climate change as an emergency (Extinction Rebellion U.K., n.d.-e). The coding excludes references to “declaring emergency”, as it is a separate code. References to “emergency responders” and “natural disasters” were also filtered out. These do not reflect the objective of the code to discover if climate change was conceptualised as a crisis.
Although ‘combative language’ seems similar to the ‘crisis’ synonyms, they differ. ‘Crisis synonyms’ examine the direct and explicit conceptualisation of climate change as an emergency, while ‘combative language’ examines the more implicit conceptualisation of climate change as an emergency. For instance, ‘climate change threatens to ..’ implies climate change is conceptualised as a crisis that will harm, but it does not explicitly acknowledge it as such. To uncover if politicians might conceptualise climate as a crisis without being explicitly vocal ‘threat’, ‘fight’, ‘combat’, ‘survival’, ‘survive’, ‘war’ and ‘conflict’ are all coded as
combative language. All are filtered for anything that does not refer to climate change, e.g. “conflict zones”,“Brexit threatens to” and “to survive the policy cycle”.
Figure 3. Codebook agenda-setting (see appendix 1 for full codebook)
Code Words
Crisis synonyms • emergency • crisis • disaster • catastrophe
Combative language • threat • fight • combat • survival, survive • war • conflict
Declaration of a climate emergency • declar
Protests (general) • protest • demonstration • demonstrators • strike, striking, strikers • activists, activism
Extinction Rebellion • Extinction Rebellion
Citizens’ assembly • assembly
Greta Thunberg • Greta • Thunberg
Schoolchildren • schoolchildren • school • children
2025 • 2025 (net zero by)
2050 • 2050 (net zero by)
3.5 Framing
The framing section first looks at the diagnostic, prognostic and motivational frames that Extinction Rebellion communicated with its audiences, based on their website, their demands, their logo and statements in newspaper articles and tweets. The frames were then categorised according to Nisbet’s typology, after which a second content analysis was performed.
The second analysis is a quantitative analysis. Every paragraph is considered a unit of analysis and receives a code. The typology serves as the coding structure, with some slight alterations (see appendix 2 for codebook). All of these frames are neutral and disregard any attitude of the argument (Nisbet, 2009, p.18). So, an argument can be either in favour or against renewable energy as a means to revive the economy; it is an economic development and
competitiveness frame either way. Sometimes it is not directly apparent which frame is used
theme is counted and coded according to the prevalent theme. In cases where different themes are represented equally, it is up to the coder to exercise her judgement.
After coding, each category of frames within a document was divided by the total units in that document to give a percentage. The weighted numbers allowed for a comparison of the debates, even though they varied significantly in total units of analysis.
Nisbet compiled the typology through a literature analysis of numerous studies (Gamson & Modigliani 1989; Dahinden 2002; Durant, Bauer & Gaskell 1998; Nisbet & Lewenstein 2002). The following frames were identified: 1) economic development and
competitiveness, 2) conflict and strategy 3) pandora’s box, 4) social progress, 5) scientific and technical uncertainty, 6) public accountability and governance, 7) morality and ethics and 8) middle path/alternative way. It is based on American politics and highly influenced by the
partisan divide on climate change. The middle way frame, which proposes “a third way between conflicting and polarised views or options” (Nisbet, 2009, p.18) is taken out of the analysis, because it does not represent an underlying theme that is relevant for this analysis. Similarly, the typology is also used for the analysis of media output, where a third party -the journalist- interprets information and relays it. As such, the conflict & strategy is focussed on the observations of the journalists who is “winning or losing the debate”. With primary sources, this frame is irrelevant and I have reinterpreted it to geopolitical strategy. So, the frames used in the thesis are 1) pandora’s box, 2) economic development and competitiveness, 3) scientific
and technical uncertainty, 4) public accountability and governance, 5) social progress, 6) morality and ethics, 7) geopolitical strategy and 8) other.
Operationalisation of frames Pandora’s box
Pandora’s box relies on the presentation of the overwhelming consequences of climate change
(Nisbet, 2009, p.19), either in the past or in the future. Generally, it lists multiple events or scientific predictions and expresses the need for action. The frame is one that is often used with others. The extreme consequences of climate change are used to make a point that fits in another frame. That is why I choose to distinguish between “overwhelming” consequences (such as multiple deaths, extinction (either human, flora or fauna), large parts of uninhabitable lands and subsequent mass migration) and consequences specified towards a smaller case. The latter category has the goal to invoke and illustrate another frame. Smaller consequences are
often used to give a reason for e.g. economic development frame. Units that had the “overwhelming” consequences are coded as pandora’s box. When multiple consequences that fit in different frames are named in succession of each other, they are also coded as pandora’s
box. The objective of these units is to illustrate “out-of-control” consequences. Units that
mention consequences to illustrate another category are coded according to that specific category (e.g. the costs of flood-related damages that have occurred is coded as economic
development and competitiveness).
Economic development and competitiveness
Politicians invoke the economic development and competitiveness frame when they refer to climate change as an economic issue. It can be a market risk or benefit, a means of increasing or decreasing competitiveness or an economic investment (Nisbet, 2009, p.18). For example, the price drop of new technologies and export opportunities for green technologies are market benefits. “Green jobs” is a framing device which instantaneously relates economic argumentation to climate change (Nisbet, 2009, p.18).
Scientific and technical uncertainty
Scientific and technical uncertainty regards to the scientific debate that has plagued this issue.
Originating in the U.S. in the 1990s (Nisbet, 2009, p.18), the doubt on the scientific certainty blew over to Europe. Albeit to a lesser degree, doubts about (human-induced) climate have also been detected in the U.K. (Whitmarsh, 2011, p. 691). It has led to a perceived need to confirm or endorse the scientific consensus, even if there is no dissenting voice. So, the frame concerns the discussion, mentioning or endorsement of either side of the debate on expert understanding or consensus on climate change.
Public accountability and governance frame
The public accountability and governance frame concerns “policy in the public interest or
serving special interest, emphasising issues of control, transparency, participation, responsiveness, or ownership; or debate over proper use of science and expertise in decisionmaking” (Nisbet, 2009, p. 18) Unfortunately, it becomes an umbrella category in
parliamentary debates. All governmental debates inherently have the goal to establish what should and should not be governmentally regulated and how. That is why the code is only assigned if no other code fits. In case investments, feed-in tariffs, exporting tariffs are
officially this is policy, but the main concern is how these policies are framed. That means that the reasonings and justifications for those policies are interesting and are coded accordingly. Often, a policy is merely proposed or mentioned without framing device or justification, or the justification follows in the next paragraph. If this is the case, it is coded as public accountability
and governance. When it is an enumeration of current or preferred governmental actions, which
include several frames and not one specifically, it is coded also coded as public accountability
and governance. Because when multiple policies are mentioned, the objective of the argument
is to convince the listener it is the government’s responsibility to act, not to convince them of the economic/social progress/morality motivations of one policy
Social progress
When climate change mitigation is framed as a means of social progress, it refers to “improving
the quality of life or solving problems; alternative interpretation as a way to be in harmony with nature instead of mastering it” (Nisbet, 2009, p.18). I find that this is a rather broad
category, which can overlap with multiple frames, such as morality and ethics, economic
competitiveness and public accountability. Alleviating poverty, rebalancing the financial
burden of climate change action from poorer to wealthier and protecting the earth for future generations all end up in a grey area. That is why I decided to limit the frame to issues such as the protection of the natural world (e.g. biodiversity, forest preservation, fauna decline), personal well-being and public health. Framing climate change as a public health issue highlights the health benefits of climate action and/or the harmful implications of not undertaking action and brings the issue closer to home for the audience (Nisbet, 2009, p.22). It was found to provoke attitudes in favour of climate action and effective in sparking hopeful emotions in respondents (Myers, Nisbet, Maibach & Leiserowitz, 2012, p. 1109). Generic statements such as “creating better lives” without economic or moral reasoning will also be coded as social progress.
Morality and ethics
Through morality and ethics climate change is framed as a moral/ethical issue. The responsibility of developed nations to account for the industrial revolution and accompanying emissions, to mitigate the impact of climate change on developing nations, to alleviate poverty and the moral responsibility towards future generations (Chetty, Devadas & Fleming, 2015, p. 5). For this category there are signifiers such as; duty, responsibility, obligation, moral authority, poverty.
Geopolitical strategy
As previously mentioned, the conflict and strategy frame is reinterpreted into a geopolitical
strategy frame for the purpose of this analysis. Research has indicated that climate change
debates often see framing that connect nations, either through cooperation or insecurity (Dewulf, 2013). The geopolitical strategy frames climate change as either an issue of international (in)security or as an issue of cooperation. Climate change can impact the security of a nation through relocation of borders (e.g. melted icecaps connecting U.S. to Russia) and increased need for physical protection against other nations or increased dependence on a nation for energy or food. Combating climate change can also call for international cooperation, working together to combat climate change. Signifiers are references to international platforms such as the UN Climate Change Conference (COP) or the European Union or to diplomacy. When speakers refer to internationally set targets there are two options; either geopolitical
strategy or public accountability and governance. It falls under geopolitical strategy when the
internationally agreed upon targets or their framework are referred to in general, or when it questions how the U.K. will get other nations to uphold the targets. When they are mentioned to illustrate the point that the government is not taking sufficient action to achieve the targets set out for the U.K., the unit is coded as public accountability and governance.
Other
The final category is other. This category is present to ensure that the code book is exhaustive and is attributed to paragraphs that do not fit in any of the designated categories. Most often these are paragraphs on procedural remarks or the introduction of new Members of Parliament.
3.6 Limitations
Often, agenda-setting is studied through time-series analysis over longer periods of time. The data is organised across units of time, which can reveal trends. It is considered a robust methodology for ascertaining causation in agenda-setting (Meraz, 2011, p. 181). However, Extinction Rebellion is a relatively new activist group. So, there is a limited amount of data available. Mere months passed between the establishment of Extinction Rebellion on 31st of October 2018 and the declaration on the 1st of May 2019. That leaves the analysis of Extinction Rebellion limited to a relative short period of time. Therefore, a more in-depth analysis is
required. It does not, and cannot, systematically track long-term relationships that might exists between different framing strategies (Cormier & Tindall, 2005, p.1).
With both agenda-setting and framing causation is difficult to establish. In the social world there are so many variables, it is nearly impossible to create a controlled environment in which you determine causality. Therefore, the objective is to determine correlations rather than causal relationships. Furthermore, the content analysis does not have the ability to uncover motives of politicians. It analyses what is said in parliamentary debates, but politicians are not always forthcoming and might have alternative agendas that could explain certain choices. Unfortunately, without interviews these cannot be uncovered. And perhaps not even with them. Furthermore, no analysis is ever entirely objective. The researcher always interprets the data, and every researcher has conscious and unconscious biases. Content analysis tries to approach objectivity as closely as possible by deciding upon a coding framework with coding rules before the analysis. However, deciding upon a coding framework and coding rules is also subject to biases.
4. Agenda-setting
The chapter will first analyse the pressure Extinction Rebellion has exerted on the political system in an attempt to put climate change on the political agenda. The first part discusses Extinction Rebellion goals, strategies, protests. Then it will consider the impact of the problem indictors, focusing events and feedback by analysing how the media and public opinion responded. Finally, it will look at the parliamentary debates to uncover if Extinction Rebellion’s efforts translated to agenda-setting of climate change in Parliament.
4.1 Extinction Rebellion agenda-setting
Extinction Rebellion is an organisation that is decentralised and open to anyone and everyone who shares their values (Extinction Rebellion, n.d.-a). They organise local, regional, national and international events where anyone is free to join. In order to communicate their views and values clearly and effectively to such a splintered and spread-out audience, Extinction Rebellion has dedicated their website to explaining their vision, organisational structure, demands and their strategy to achieve their goals.
Although they mainly share broad visions and abstract ideas for a future, they do have three concrete demands. Their first demand is that the government will “tell the truth by
declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change” (Extinction Rebellion U.K., n.d.-d). Secondly, they require the
government to act quickly to ensure that biodiversity loss is halted, and greenhouse-gas emissions are reduced to net zero by 2025 (Extinction Rebellion U.K., n.d.-d). Finally, they call for a Citizens’ Assembly to lead the government on matters of climate and ecological justice (Extinction Rebellion U.K., n.d.-d). All Extinction Rebellion actions seem designed to instil the urgency of climate change in citizens and politicians alike, and to bring these three demands on the political agenda.
This section will analyse problem indicators and triggering events in instigated by Extinction Rebellion and judge their effectiveness by looking at media attention, public opinion and the informational feedback politicians received. It will first describe Extinction Rebellion goals and strategy, before discussing problem indicators and focusing events. Finally, Extinction Rebellion’s influence on agenda-setting will be examined through an analysis of media attention, public opinion and quotes of politicians.
4.2. Extinction Rebellion framework and strategy
Extinction Rebellion’s approach is centred around the civil resistance model. Civil resistance is continuous, non-violent action carried out by civilians against an opponent that is not against using violence (Schock, 2013, p. 277). Studies have found that non-violent civil resistance campaigns are twice as likely to be effective compared to violent campaigns (Stephan & Chenoweth, 2008, p. 8). It increases legitimisation of the movement, and it encourages others to participate (Stephan & Chenoweth, 2008, p. 9). Broad-based participation is necessary to increase pressure on the target, in this case the U.K. government.
The open and decentralised nature of the organisation lends itself well to broad-based participation. Anyone who identifies with the values of the movement can simply join an event, or start a ‘Local Group’ or ‘Community Group’ if they wish to participate on a more regular basis. These Local Groups have been growing exponentially, showing up in large and small cities around the world (Extinction Rebellion U.K., n.d.-c). Currently, there are 1128 local groups in 69 countries (Extinction Rebellion, n.d.)
In an effort to build a movement rather than an organisation, Extinction Rebellion has intentionally chosen to steer clear of a centralised strategy (Burns & Reimann, 2019, p. 106). They argue that it would lessen the intrinsic motivation of participants. They maintain people act according to their beliefs and if a centralised strategy deviates from that belief even slightly, supporters will lose interest (Burns & Reimann, 2019, p. 106). Instead, Extinction Rebellion tries to instil the urgency of the situation and share a vision for the future. Consequently, those who want to take action can do so in any way, shape or form – as long as it is non-violent action (Burns & Reimann, 2019, p. 106). It causes Extinction Rebellion to be a cell-structured, highly flexible and adaptive organisation (Amm, 2020).
The primary tool of civil resistance is protesting. Extinction Rebellion’s take on the model requires six ingredients. First, people. Ideally, they would like to see several thousand protesters (Hallam, 2019, p.101). Second, the protest has to take place in the capital, where the government, the media and the elite reside. Their rationale is that these institutions do not care about protests as long as it is not in their immediate vicinity (Hallam, 2019, p.101). Third, civil disobedience: protesters need to break the law. They view it as essential to the non-violent effort for it “creates the social tension and the public drama which are vital to create change.” (Hallam, 2019, p. 101). In order to support the “underdog narrative”, to “show the public and
the elites you are serious and unafraid” and to “create the necessary material disruption and economic cost which forces the elites to sit up and take notice” the rules need to be broken
