When climate change is not blamed: the politics of disaster attribution in international perspective

Myanna Lahsen,Gabriela De Azevedo Couto,Irene Lorenzoni

doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02642-z

Abstract

Analyzing the politics and policy implications in Brazil of attributing extreme weather events to climate change, we argue for greater place-based sensitivity in recommendations for how to frame extreme weather events relative to climate change. Identifying geographical limits of current recommendations to emphasize the climate role in such events, we explore Brazilian framings of the two tragic national disasters, as apparent in newspaper coverage of climate change. We find that a variety of contextual factors compel environmental leaders and scientists in Brazil to avoid and discourage highlighting the role of climate change in national extreme events. Against analysts’ general deficit-finding assumptions, we argue that the Brazilian framing tendency reflects sound strategic, socio-environmental reasoning, and discuss circumstances in which attributing such events to climate change—and, by extension, attribution science—can be ineffective for policy action on climate change and other socio-environmental issues in need of public pressure and preventive action. The case study has implications beyond Brazil by begging greater attention to policies and politics in particular places before assuming that attribution science and discursive emphasis on the climate role in extreme events are the most strategic means of achieving climate mitigation and disaster preparedness. Factors at play in Brazil might also structure extreme events attribution politics in other countries, not least some other countries of the global South.

Highlights

Extreme events can focus attention on climate change and challenge skepticism about its reality and whether it will have deleterious consequences, key foci of climate skepticism (Rahmstorf 2004)
Disasters raise discussions of human blame and responsibility and can provide lessons for future improvements, but the strategic value of attributing extreme events to climate change depends on the nature of existing policies and on opportunities for new ones—factors subject to national variation
Our study suggests that more attention should be paid to understanding context-specific politics of disaster framings, as distinct from the science of attributing extreme events to climate change

Summary

Introduction

Extreme events can focus attention on climate change and challenge skepticism about its reality and whether it will have deleterious consequences, key foci of climate skepticism (Rahmstorf 2004). US media often call attention to the possible role of climate change in devastating events such as the 2017 US hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Writing in Science recently, Marcia McNutt—the journal’s former editor-in-chief, a geophysicist, and current president of the US National Academy of Science—expressed the pervasive but often implicit hope associated with attribution science: “Whether the extreme event is a heatwave, flood, drought, wildfire, or hurricane, demonstrating to the public how climate change is amplifying the negative impacts of these events can spur more immediate action” The same premise structures the advice of communication strategists associated with organizations such as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Aspen Institute for Global Change, whose Climate Communication Project is advised by a long list of highly distinguished American climate experts from the natural and social sciences and the humanities Evoking examples from around the world, they criticize media for “far too often” failing to seize on the “clear opportunity” to highlight the climate role in extreme events where scientists are confident that it has played a role, and call on experts to emphasize the links in their communications (Hassol et al 2016)

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion