**4.1. Climate policy in Germany: The background**

discourse. Salience designates how much a concept is incorporated in a collective prob‐ lem definition, how often it is used and how central it is within the affiliation network. Issue coalitions, groups of actors that share similar policy ideas are subgroups within the actor network in terms of network analysis. The reconcilability of issues is reflected by

The sets of actors, concepts and edges change over time as actors enter or leave the dis‐ course and change their respective problem interpretations. When one actor leaves the discourse, this reduces not only the set of actors but also the set of edges a) within the actor network by those edges that previously connected this actor to other actors, b) within the affiliation network by those edges that connected this actor to concepts, and c) within the concept network by those edges that connected the different concepts

their interconnectedness within the issue network.

164 Environmental Change and Sustainability

**Figure 1.** Discourses as Networks (Source: (6))

Previous studies concerned with climate change policy have discussed Germany as an extreme case because of its outstanding achievements in this policy area [49]. They found that public discourse has played an important role in this development. The dominant perception of climate change and climate policy has been considerably stable: climate change is perceived as a problem that requires state intervention, whereby climate pro‐ tection also bears economic opportunities. This perception has become known as "ecolog‐ ic modernization" paradigm. However, there are indications that the economic crisis might have threatened the "German consensus" and changed the dominant perception of the climate issue as suggested by PE theory. The financial crisis provides the opportuni‐ ty to conduct such a natural experiment.

The issue of climate change entered the sphere of German public discourse and high politics for the first time during the mid-1980s [13]. In 1986, a press release of the German Physical Society (DPG) and its subgroup, the Working Group on Energy (AKE), depicted climate change as an "impending catastrophe" requiring immediate political action and initiated an extensive coverage of the climate change topic within the mass media. Initially, the political sphere remained skeptical, doubting the scientific soundness of these warnings. However, it could not ignore increasing public concern and call for action. After the Chernobyl catastro‐ phe in April 1986, Chancellor Helmut Kohl swiftly established the Ministry of Environment (June 5, 1986). Shortly after that, in March 1987, he declared the climate issue to be one of the world's most pressing environmental problems [13]. From this point on, Germany has emerged as a forerunner in domestic climate protection and as a pacemaker at the European as well as at the global level. A large range of policies for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has been passed during the last two decades. Energy efficiency has been raised in all economic sectors [13]. By 2008 Germany had already reached its target of a 21% reduction by 2010 compared with 1990, and the recent government pursues a reduction tar‐ get of 40% until 2020 [50].

Scholars have largely attributed this success to the broad public participation and the consensual style of German policy making. This style has been enhanced by the integra‐ tion of the Green movement into political institutions during the late 1980s, by federal‐ ism and by the German electoral system of proportional representation [13, 49]. Scholars and policy makers have pointed out that public support for the German government's initiatives is strongly based on the public perception that policy interventions in the field of environmental policy do not weaken but strengthen economic growth. This perception has its seeds in experiences made during the 1980s when demanding and costly meas‐ ures with respect to another environmental issue, air pollution, did not hamper econom‐ ic growth, but instead enhanced employment, technological innovation and the modernization of industries. The public perception of "ecological modernization" as a win-win-strategy in solving environmental problems has proven to be very stable, de‐ spite of an attention decline with respect to climate issues during the 1990s. However, while the government and proponents of a strong global climate change policy have pro‐ vided the public with considerable information about net benefits for the country as a whole, they have kept quiet about redistributional effects of current and planned domes‐ tic programs and international commitments [13]. They issue the concern that reliance on "ecological modernization", combined with some kind of "distributional opaqueness", might turn out to be a drawback to German consensus. Furthermore, the drive for con‐ sensus might backfire as soon as doubts enter the discourse with respect to the reliabili‐ ty of scientific findings on global warming [12]. This could threaten the legitimacy of political decisions based on scientific knowledge.

The issue of climate change passed through the issue-attention cycle for the first time in the second half of the 20th century [23]. Though it has never completely vanished from the pub‐ lic agenda, attention to climate change was relatively low during the second half of the 1990s. A new attention-cycle started at the beginning of the 21st century and reached its peak in 2007 when the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report. Since 2007, attention to the issue of climate change has been falling again. The financial crisis seems to have inten‐ sified this down-swing since it had more dramatic value and a higher degree of novelty than the issue of climate change [24]. Thus, when trade markets crashed in September 2008, this event drew media attention away from the climate problem, as predicted by the arena mod‐ el of Hilgartner and Bosk [39]. The application of discourse network analysis on the German climate discourse within this study allows taking a closer look at actor constellations and frame configurations.

#### **4.2. Data selection, coding, and network analysis**

This study is based on newspaper articles published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei‐ tung (FAZ) and the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) within the first quarter of the years 2007 to the first quarter of 2010 which treated climate change as a main topic. Both newspa‐ pers were chosen as data sources due to their prestigious status and high circulation rates (about 2 million copies each). Both are regarded as important reference media by other journalists and are read most frequently by the members of the German Parlia‐ ment (Deutscher Bundestag). Hence, they can be assumed to have an influence on the society as a whole as well as on decision makers. Furthermore, both newspapers cover the main political spectrum of German politics. The FAZ has a rather conservative pro‐ file, while the SZ is considered to be more social-liberal.

The articles were selected from the online archives of both papers, including the complete news coverage for all days of appearance and all news sections. Within a two-step selection process "Klimaschutz\*" (climate protection), "Klimawandel\*" (climate change) and "Glob‐ ale\* Erwärmung\*" (global warming) were identified as the most valid and effective choice of key words [24]. Articles that contained at least one of these keywords in the headline and/or lead paragraph were copied to the JAVA based software *Discourse Network Analyzer* (DNA) programmed by Philip Leifeld [8]. The data set was manually reviewed and articles that contained the keywords but were not really about meteorological climate change (e.g. "Kli‐ mawandel\*" in the sense of working atmosphere) were excluded. Opinion columns were ex‐ cluded as well because of low intracoding-reliability.

and policy makers have pointed out that public support for the German government's initiatives is strongly based on the public perception that policy interventions in the field of environmental policy do not weaken but strengthen economic growth. This perception has its seeds in experiences made during the 1980s when demanding and costly meas‐ ures with respect to another environmental issue, air pollution, did not hamper econom‐ ic growth, but instead enhanced employment, technological innovation and the modernization of industries. The public perception of "ecological modernization" as a win-win-strategy in solving environmental problems has proven to be very stable, de‐ spite of an attention decline with respect to climate issues during the 1990s. However, while the government and proponents of a strong global climate change policy have pro‐ vided the public with considerable information about net benefits for the country as a whole, they have kept quiet about redistributional effects of current and planned domes‐ tic programs and international commitments [13]. They issue the concern that reliance on "ecological modernization", combined with some kind of "distributional opaqueness", might turn out to be a drawback to German consensus. Furthermore, the drive for con‐ sensus might backfire as soon as doubts enter the discourse with respect to the reliabili‐ ty of scientific findings on global warming [12]. This could threaten the legitimacy of

The issue of climate change passed through the issue-attention cycle for the first time in the second half of the 20th century [23]. Though it has never completely vanished from the pub‐ lic agenda, attention to climate change was relatively low during the second half of the 1990s. A new attention-cycle started at the beginning of the 21st century and reached its peak in 2007 when the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report. Since 2007, attention to the issue of climate change has been falling again. The financial crisis seems to have inten‐ sified this down-swing since it had more dramatic value and a higher degree of novelty than the issue of climate change [24]. Thus, when trade markets crashed in September 2008, this event drew media attention away from the climate problem, as predicted by the arena mod‐ el of Hilgartner and Bosk [39]. The application of discourse network analysis on the German climate discourse within this study allows taking a closer look at actor constellations and

This study is based on newspaper articles published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei‐ tung (FAZ) and the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) within the first quarter of the years 2007 to the first quarter of 2010 which treated climate change as a main topic. Both newspa‐ pers were chosen as data sources due to their prestigious status and high circulation rates (about 2 million copies each). Both are regarded as important reference media by other journalists and are read most frequently by the members of the German Parlia‐ ment (Deutscher Bundestag). Hence, they can be assumed to have an influence on the society as a whole as well as on decision makers. Furthermore, both newspapers cover the main political spectrum of German politics. The FAZ has a rather conservative pro‐

political decisions based on scientific knowledge.

**4.2. Data selection, coding, and network analysis**

file, while the SZ is considered to be more social-liberal.

frame configurations.

166 Environmental Change and Sustainability

Statements were edited within DNA. The unit of analysis was a statement, a part of the text where an actor expresses his beliefs or solution concepts for a policy problem [8]. In this study we look at two kinds of concepts: frames and positions. A first step of coding consid‐ ered only frames. Tags were assigned to each statement that coded the individual speaker, the organization that he or she was affiliated with and the frame that he or she used. There‐ by an actor was defined as an identifiable speaker that is not only mentioned in the article, but is given the opportunity to express his opinion by means of direct or indirect quote. On‐ ly those statements were coded that could clearly be attributed to a specific actor – an indi‐ vidual person or an organization. If an actor gave his opinion with regard to a specific policy measure within a statement (i.e. rejection or support for a specific measure), the state‐ ment was edited a second time. This time, positions were coded instead of frames. A dum‐ my variable indicating agreement or disagreement with regard to a position was recorded.

This study uses a typology of *frames* which was inductively developed on the basis of a ran‐ dom sample of 10% of all articles sampled for the first quarter of 2008 and 2009. The coding is based on methods and procedures developed by Gerhards and Schäfer [51]. In this way, different arguments of actors are grouped into interpretative patterns that are subject to sev‐ eral strategies of reduction. These in turn are assigned to several categories, following the idea that arguments and actors can be grouped according to the different rationalities of so‐ cietal sub-systems. Applied to our subject, actors can use political, economic, scientific, ethi‐ cal, ecological, and policy arguments. Our study thus assumes that with respect to viable policy responses it is important to differentiate whether political responsibility is attributed to the local, national, European or international level. Accordingly, political arguments are grouped into these four sub-categories (Table 1).

The next step of analysis refers to *positions* which are specific policy measures that an actor opposes or supports. The list of positions was inductively extended whenever an actor is‐ sued a policy measure not yet on the list. If a policy instrument was suggested several times but each time with respect to another sector (e.g. emission limits for the car industry or ener‐ gy producers), these measures were categorized respectively.

From this data, several networks were generated with the help of *DNA* [8] and *UCINET 6* [52]. Analysis related to centrality positions and their visualizations were conducted with *visone,* a JAVA based software for the visualization and analysis of social networks [53-54].



**Table 1.** Frames

**Frame Description**

levels, melting ice, heat waves, issues of biodiversity etc.

**Ecological/meteorological frame**

168 Environmental Change and Sustainability

1 Individual lifestyle Statements about practices of individual and community living, consumption

2 Popular culture References to information campaigns aiming to raise public awareness of the issue of climate change, books, films, etc.

References to ecological and meteorological impacts of climate change that are already observable, e.g. rising sea

climate change, etc.

growth

commotions

1 Local level Local governments take action/are called into account 2 National level National governments take action/are called into account 3 European level European institutions take action/are called into account

patterns, private insurances covering for damages resulting from impacts of

Statements on business aspects of climate change, e.g. economic costs imposed on companies by climate change mitigation policies or business

Considerations regarding national location attractiveness, competition between German and foreign companies, creation of jobs, or economic

Discussion on how much commitments industrialized countries can demand from developing countries or on whether they have to compensate poor

Moral feeling of obligation to mitigate climate change, e.g. in the sense of

Discussion on who should bear the cost of climate change mitigation measures – i.e. the state, major polluters or the population – and what cost the population can be expected to pay for climate change mitigation

Considerations regarding social impacts such as migration and civil

Predictions on the ecological consequences of climate change, e.g. changes

Discussions on the potential effectiveness of mitigation measures and on whether anthropogenic climate change can still be maintained at a non-

opportunities for companies arising from green technologies

countries for increased climate risks and damages

intergenerational responsibility

Debates on (potential) climate change mitigation or adaptation measures and on responsibilities of different actors

4 International level International government actors take action/are called into account

in Atlantic circulation

critical level at all

1 Causes of climate change Ideas or beliefs about the geophysical causes of climate change (e.g. the role of human-produced greenhouse gases)

**Cultural frames**

**Economic frames** 1 Microeconomic considerations

2 Macroeconomic considerations

**Ethical and social frames** 1 Sharing responsibility

developing world

population

change

in the policy arena

**Scientific frames**

change

**2** Consequences of climate

**3** Effects of climate change mitigation measures

between industrialized and

2 Moral feeling of responsibility to mitigate climate change

3 Financial burden imposed on

4 Social impacts of climate

**Politics and policy frames**

#### **4.3. Discourse network analysis: Findings and interpretations**

Our analysis is based on a structural content analysis of 774 articles and 1459 statements. Table 2 gives an overview on how many articles were published on the issue of climate change during the first quarters of the years 2007 to 2010 within the FAZ and SZ. It also dis‐ plays the dimensions of the discourse networks within the respective quarters, the number of statements, organizations and positions. These numbers may also be influenced and biased by global policy developments, since the first quarter of 2007 was marked by the re‐ lease of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, while possible important events like the UN Climate Conferences Copenhagen took place during quarters of the other years that are not included in the data. Table 2 shows that the discourse networks strongly vary between the different years with respect to actor participation and conceptual affiliation. This has to be kept in mind when we interpret the following findings.


**Table 2.** Media Coverage of the Climate Issue (FAZ and SZ), First Quarters 2007-2010

In Figure 2 the evolution of media attention is depicted in the context of the main economic indicators. It shows that the economic downturn started in September 2008 with a plunge at the stock exchange and reached the real economy in 2009. As recovery was quick, at least in Germany the crisis was over in the beginning of 2010.

**Figure 2.** Articles on Climate Change and Economic Indicators

#### **4.4. Changing actor constellations and frame configurations**

A first step of analysis relates to possible changes in actor constellations due to the economic crisis. In this respect we are interested, firstly, in the overall actor dynamics in the field of discourse, and secondly in the relative standing of the various actors and significant changes in these positions. Figures 3 and 4, and table 3 give an overview on the dynamics. Figure 3 depicts data on entry, exit, and discourse continuation during the four years. The overall picture suggests a dynamic and pluralist policy arena in which many new actors are enter‐ ing and constellations are changing.


**Figure 3.** Participation Profiles


**Table 3.** Top 25-Actor's Statements

**Figure 2.** Articles on Climate Change and Economic Indicators

ing and constellations are changing.

170 Environmental Change and Sustainability

**Figure 3.** Participation Profiles

**4.4. Changing actor constellations and frame configurations**

A first step of analysis relates to possible changes in actor constellations due to the economic crisis. In this respect we are interested, firstly, in the overall actor dynamics in the field of discourse, and secondly in the relative standing of the various actors and significant changes in these positions. Figures 3 and 4, and table 3 give an overview on the dynamics. Figure 3 depicts data on entry, exit, and discourse continuation during the four years. The overall picture suggests a dynamic and pluralist policy arena in which many new actors are enter‐

Table 3 lists the standings of the 25 top policy actors that participated in at least three years up to spring 2010. In order to control for variation in discursive activities, we nor‐ malized their figures with respect to the yearly total numbers and depicted them as per‐ centages. Figure 4 correlates the four columns of the table (activity profiles) and shows interesting results. While the correlation between the actors' standings between 2007 and 2008 is rather high, the correlations dropped to .47 and .39 in the following years during the economic crisis. The pre-crisis actor configurations differ greatly from within- and post-crisis constellations.

**Figure 4.** Correlation of 25 Top-Actor's Participation Profiles

A further key question is how the economic crisis affected frame configurations. If Maslow's hierarchy of needs also applies to policy discourse we can assume that economic frames gain importance and possibly crowed out non-economic frames. Figures 5-7 can give a parti‐ al answer to that question. They show which organization is utilizing certain frames within the discourse on climate change during the respective quarters. The thickness of links be‐ tween actors and frames corresponds to the frequency that an actor uses the respective frame. The size and arrangement of frames indicate indegree centrality of frames which equals the relative frequency that a frame is cited by all actors. Thus, the frame with the big‐ gest node area and the most central position within the circular arrangement is used the most often within the respective time period.

Between 2007 and 2009, shifts in the frame constellation can be observed from year to year. Each year, another frame occupies the most central position within the discourse. Thereby, the first quarter of 2009 differs from the other periods of observation in two respects: Firstly, while a politics and policy frame dominates the discourse in all other quarters, the macro‐ economic frame is the most central one in the first quarter of 2009. Secondly, while the dis‐ course is evolving around few frames in 2007, 2008 and 2010, it is characterized by a much more heterogeneous frames distribution in 2009. The first observation seems to support the proposition that the financial crisis had a direct impact on the individual perception of cli‐ mate change in so far that it highlights economic aspects of the problem. But, taking into consideration the low degree of overall centralization, the domination of the macroeconomic frame in 2009 is not very strong. It is only short-lived. In addition, this frame is mainly con‐ nected to actors from the business sector or foreign political actors, but less to domestic po‐ litical actors who largely use the national policy frame in 2009. In all other years, the macroeconomic frame is used by a more heterogeneous set of actors. Over all time periods the macroeconomic frame has the most stable position and is always among the three most central frames. Its shift to the center in 2009 is a result of the overall fragmentation of the discourse. In the other years, as the thickness of links shows, governmental actors push for‐ ward the respective central frame. In 2007, the Federal Ministry for Environment, Natural Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) promotes the national policy and politics frame, in 2008, the DG Environment of the European Commission pushes forward the European poli‐ cy and politics frame and in 2010, different federal ministries promote the two politics and policy frames at the center. Such a strong political commitment is lacking in 2009.

**Figure 5.** Affiliation Network Organizations-Frames 2007

Table 3 lists the standings of the 25 top policy actors that participated in at least three years up to spring 2010. In order to control for variation in discursive activities, we nor‐ malized their figures with respect to the yearly total numbers and depicted them as per‐ centages. Figure 4 correlates the four columns of the table (activity profiles) and shows interesting results. While the correlation between the actors' standings between 2007 and 2008 is rather high, the correlations dropped to .47 and .39 in the following years during the economic crisis. The pre-crisis actor configurations differ greatly from within- and

A further key question is how the economic crisis affected frame configurations. If Maslow's hierarchy of needs also applies to policy discourse we can assume that economic frames gain importance and possibly crowed out non-economic frames. Figures 5-7 can give a parti‐ al answer to that question. They show which organization is utilizing certain frames within the discourse on climate change during the respective quarters. The thickness of links be‐ tween actors and frames corresponds to the frequency that an actor uses the respective frame. The size and arrangement of frames indicate indegree centrality of frames which equals the relative frequency that a frame is cited by all actors. Thus, the frame with the big‐ gest node area and the most central position within the circular arrangement is used the

Between 2007 and 2009, shifts in the frame constellation can be observed from year to year. Each year, another frame occupies the most central position within the discourse. Thereby, the first quarter of 2009 differs from the other periods of observation in two respects: Firstly, while a politics and policy frame dominates the discourse in all other quarters, the macro‐ economic frame is the most central one in the first quarter of 2009. Secondly, while the dis‐ course is evolving around few frames in 2007, 2008 and 2010, it is characterized by a much

post-crisis constellations.

172 Environmental Change and Sustainability

**Figure 4.** Correlation of 25 Top-Actor's Participation Profiles

most often within the respective time period.

**Figure 6.** Affiliation Network Organizations-Frames 2008

**Figure 7.** Affiliation Network Organizations-Frames 2009

A further step is the depiction of various organizations and their policy positions. Figures 8 and 9 show which actors have a position towards policy measures and whether they sup‐ port (light links) or oppose (dark, dashed links) the relative measure or are undecided (dark continuous line). The size of the nodes reflects *indegree centrality* of the respective policy proposition which equals the relative frequency that a proposition is commented.

**Figure 8.** Affiliation Network Organizations-Positions 2007

**Figure 6.** Affiliation Network Organizations-Frames 2008

174 Environmental Change and Sustainability

**Figure 7.** Affiliation Network Organizations-Frames 2009

**Figure 9.** Affiliation Network Organizations-Positions 2009

Only in 2007 and 2008 there is a controversial debate on policy measures. Again, few gov‐ ernmental actors – especially the Federal Ministry of Environment (BMU) – hereby take a central position. The networks are decomposed into several components in 2009 and 2010. We can see that there is a consensus on the promotion of regenerative energy. It might be that - as political conflicts on how to tackle the financial crisis intensified - actors became less inclined to settle political conflicts in the area of climate policy.

With respect to frame analysis, Figure 10 shows the co-occurrence of frames in 2008. The width and darkness of links visualizes the strength of interconnection in terms of how many organizations use both interconnected frames.

Comparing the connections between frames within the different periods of observation, it can be stated that the macroeconomic frame is the frame, which is best connected to other frames, especially in 2008. The connection between the macroeconomic frame and the na‐ tional politics and policy frame is especially strong in all years. Apart from that, the macro‐ economic frame is always strongly connected to the relative dominating frame, which could explain the success of the "ecological modernization" paradigm. The financial crisis does not reduce the interconnectedness of the macroeconomic frame. The actors who hold up this in‐ terconnection are the insurance company Munich Re, the green party (Bündnis 90/Die Grü‐ nen) and the social democratic party (SPD). It seems that advocates of strong climate protection in the light of the financial crisis adopt economic frames to link the climate issue to the crisis and mobilize against the decline of attention to climate change.

**Figure 10.** Co-occurrence Network Frames 2008

**Figure 9.** Affiliation Network Organizations-Positions 2009

176 Environmental Change and Sustainability

organizations use both interconnected frames.

inclined to settle political conflicts in the area of climate policy.

Only in 2007 and 2008 there is a controversial debate on policy measures. Again, few gov‐ ernmental actors – especially the Federal Ministry of Environment (BMU) – hereby take a central position. The networks are decomposed into several components in 2009 and 2010. We can see that there is a consensus on the promotion of regenerative energy. It might be that - as political conflicts on how to tackle the financial crisis intensified - actors became less

With respect to frame analysis, Figure 10 shows the co-occurrence of frames in 2008. The width and darkness of links visualizes the strength of interconnection in terms of how many

Comparing the connections between frames within the different periods of observation, it can be stated that the macroeconomic frame is the frame, which is best connected to other frames, especially in 2008. The connection between the macroeconomic frame and the na‐ tional politics and policy frame is especially strong in all years. Apart from that, the macro‐ economic frame is always strongly connected to the relative dominating frame, which could explain the success of the "ecological modernization" paradigm. The financial crisis does not

**Figure 11.** Affiliation-Network Frames-Positions 2008

A further analytical step refers to the frame-position network. In this respect, Figure 11 shows the co-occurrences of and conflicts between frames and positions in 2008. The width and darkness of links correspond to the number of actors that use the frame and the position that the relative link connects in the same way (continuous link) or in opposing ways (dash‐ ed link). The network is quite dense; it is not possible to infer the position from the frame or the other way round. The same observation can be made during the other periods of obser‐ vation. This finding supports the proposition that the linkage between problems and solu‐ tions at the collective level is not straight forward [45].
