How arguments are justified in the media debate on climate change in the USA and France
by Tuomas Ylä-Anttila; Anna Kukkonen
International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development (IJISD), Vol. 8, No. 4, 2014

Abstract: This paper examines the differences in the values that are evoked to justify arguments in the media debate on climate change in USA and France from 1997 to 2011. We find that climate change is more often discussed in terms of justice, democracy, and legal regulation in France, while monetary value plays a more important role as a justification for climate policy arguments in the USA. Technological and scientific arguments are more often made in France, and ecological arguments equally in both countries. We argue that understanding these national differences in argumentation at least partly as reflections of deep-seated cultural conceptions about what is worthy may help in understanding why disagreement persists in the global politics of climate change.

Online publication date: Wed, 31-Dec-2014

The full text of this article is only available to individual subscribers or to users at subscribing institutions.

 
Existing subscribers:
Go to Inderscience Online Journals to access the Full Text of this article.

Pay per view:
If you are not a subscriber and you just want to read the full contents of this article, buy online access here.

Complimentary Subscribers, Editors or Members of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development (IJISD):
Login with your Inderscience username and password:

Username:        Password:          Forgotten your password?

Want to subscribe?
A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable). See our Orders page to subscribe.

If you still need assistance, please email subs@inderscience.com