Collective Struggle or a War? The Effectiveness of Adversarial Framing in the Climate Debate

Within the fight for climate action, an internal debate rages over how to best frame the issue. Rooted in fundamental differences of understanding the climate crisis, writers and activists have increasingly challenged the idea... [ view full abstract ]

Within the fight for climate action, an internal debate rages over how to best frame the issue. Rooted in fundamental differences of understanding the climate crisis, writers and activists have increasingly challenged the idea of climate change as a collective struggle with an undefined adversary. Instead, they clearly delineate and antagonize a set of enemies, most notably fossil fuel companies and their conservative supporters. By shifting towards a more adversarial framing of climate change, these actors attempt to reshape the climate debate and redefine the solutions to climate change.

In this paper, I use frame analysis to examine the utility of adversarial framing in the climate debate, focusing on the narratives of author-activists Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein.

Framing represents a certain set of principles and theories of change, such that its effectiveness is dependent on core beliefs about climate change. Within McKibben and Klein’s conceptualization of the climate issue, which is rooted in social injustice and flaws in the economic system, adversarial framing is an effective means of mobilizing direct action and shifting the climate debate to encompass more radical solutions. Within a compromise-driven approach to climate change, however, adversarial framing can be polarizing and counterproductive to building bipartisan coalitions.