See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270880400

Framing Processes in the Climate Movement: From Climate Change to

Climate Justice

Chapter · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

45 5,803

2 authors:

Donatella della porta Louisa Parks

European University Institute Università degli Studi di Trento
284 PUBLICATIONS   9,667 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   367 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Benelex: Benefit-sharing for an equitable transition to the green economy - the role of law View project

Routledge Handbook of Terrorism and Counterterrorism View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Louisa Parks on 22 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Framing Processes in the Climate Movement: from Climate Change to Climate Justice

By Donatella della Porta and Louisa Parks1

The climate movement has changed greatly in recent years. Since the wide-ranging umbrella group
the Climate Action Network was created in 1989 “to coordinate the NGO response” (Busby 2010:
107) to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) there may be said
to have been a definite current of radicalisation in the movement. With what has generally judged to
be the failure of the body’s 15th conference of the parties, held in Copenhagen in 2009, the
movement entered a period of earnest internal debate. Rising Tide North America published a
reaction entitled ‘the climate movement is dead. Long live the climate movement’ (Rising Tide
2010); the climate camps in the UK began to question whether they had become ‘media savvy’ at
the cost of diluting their message; an alternative summit was convened in the city of Cochabamba
by Evo Morales in Bolivia. Debates raged over the actions that the movement should use (direct
rather than symbolic), the rejection of the ‘green economy’ solution (where the current global
economic system is seen as integral to the destruction of the earth’s climate), and the perceived
tendency of the movement to isolate itself from the linked and pertinent issues of other movements
(namely human rights and social justice, thus the move towards ideas of climate justice).

To make sense of change in the climate movement, theories developed within social movement
studies can provide useful handles. The discipline of social movement studies developed in the
context of a focus on some specific movements in a specific geographical area and historical era:
new social movements, so considered because they addressed issues of reproduction rather than
redistribution in societies which were considered as post-industrial. The field also grew under
specific contextual conditions: in so-called advanced democracies, characterized by party
governments, nation states and mature welfare systems. Influential works, such as Charles Tilly’s,
located movements in the development of capitalism and the construction of the state (1978, 1984).
The most analysed were in fact the environmental and women’s movements, while ethnic, right-
wing, or religious movements—and even labour movements—were rarely addressed within this
frame.

The very definition of social movements tended to fit the same specific movements that had
inspired the development of the field, as they took networked forms, had well defined collective

1
Our particular thanks for insights and guidance go to the editors of the volume.
identities and used contentious repertoires of action (della Porta and Diani 2006, chap. 1). These
elements allowed scholars to distinguish (more) permanent movements from (more) temporary
coalitions.

Yet the very definition of social movements requires adaptation in the face of recent developments
as well as the application of social movement studies in other geo-political and historical areas. In
particular, reflection on the very tool-kit of social movement studies is needed when we broaden our
analysis to include much transnational collective action. The growing importance of political
globalization, with the increasing power of some international organizations, has in fact increased
attempts to put pressure on multilevel governance beyond national borders. Transnational social
movements, when compared with national ones, tend to work more thorough temporary coalitions,
through campaigns that combine various forms of contention and non-contentious actions, bringing
about the development of multiple, tolerant identities (della Porta 2005). New technologies facilitate
cross-fertilization in action between social movement organizations which retain specific core
concerns, but bridge them with others through the adoption of broker issues (such as global justice
or environmental justice) (della Porta 2007). In definitional terms, this leaves the field open as to
how strong a common identity, how dense a network and how contentious a form of action an actor
needs to use in order to be recognized as a social movement rather than a coalition.

For sure, transnational dynamics become more relevant in transnational protests, such as those on
climate change. The multiplication of transnational coalitions active on issues of peace, human
rights and environment call in fact for more attention than thus far granted to be paid to the
characteristics of such forms of collective action, that put together what we have been accustomed
to consider as separate movements. We need, that is, more reflection on specific tools that might
allow us to investigate the different characteristics of these coalitions, as well as their chances of
success.

Given the special timing of transnational campaigns, influenced as they are by the complex
evolution of multi-level decision making, we also need to reflect more on the dynamics of
evolution. Not only in fact do transnational campaigns alternate (short) moments of visibility
through protest action with long moments of latency (or less visible lobbying), they also need to
follow policies and the like through the original international decisions to national ratification and
often up again. Continuous upward and downward shifting (Tarrow and McAdam 2005) are
extremely important at the onset as well as during the development of those campaigns.
Global in aspiration, transnational collective actors are however also often divided along
geographical lines. The power and influence of northern actors is often criticized by Southern ones.
More and more—as in the climate change campaigns—generational divides emerge as well. How
much diversity is positively enriching and just when diversity becomes divisive instead is a related,
central issue of practical and theoretical concern.

In what follows, we shall build on this general discourse by focusing on framing as a central
concept in the adaptation of social movement studies to transnational campaigns, in this case that on
climate change. Frames will also be used as an illustration of the contribution social movement
studies can give to understand protests on climate change, but also vice-versa in terms of the
contribution that research on climate change can make to update social movement studies.
Understanding and mapping the soul-searching exercises gripping the climate movement now can
be usefully guided by drawing on the literature on framing. It is of course true that in recent years
social movement theory too has come a long way in terms of developing explanations and
analytical frameworks considering movements in their entirety and in a wider context encompassing
revolution (for an overview see della Porta and Diani 2006). In light of this recent seismic shift in
the climate movement, however, the literature on framing can provide a useful prism through which
to make some sense of the developments. Frames are ‘cognitive schemata’ used to make sense of
situations, to attribute blame, identify solutions, and motivate participation (REF). Framing work
includes a number of processes via which movement actors change and adapt collective action
frames to new social and political realities. Although this short contribution cannot hope to provide
anything like an exhaustive analysis of such work, it will point out how the broader trends and
trajectories of the climate movement in recent years can be fruitfully viewed through the language
of framing processes. It will also show some future possible developments in the framing work
literature that would appear to be a necessary in light of how we take part in dialogue and
knowledge creation in today’s world of the web 2.0.

The chapter begins by describing the literature on frames as found in the scholarly literature on
social movements, paying particular attention to those mechanisms of framing work that are most
useful for viewing the recent history of the movement. Then, an interpretation of the general
discursive shifts in the movement is offered. By way of conclusion, we reflect on how the framing
literature can help us make sense of the ongoing debates in the movement, as well as on how those
same debates suggest we update the literature on framing work as mentioned above.
A brief history of frames

One thread of social movement theory that is particularly interesting in terms of interpreting the
recent discursive shift away from climate change and towards climate justice movement is found in
the literature on framing. The concept of the frame was originally developed by Erving Goffman,
who saw frames as keys used to bring into focus different tasks and issues in interpersonal
encounters, that is a frame or “a particular definition is in charge of a situation” (Gamson 1985:
616). The concept was first theorised in relation to social movements by Snow and Benford (see
Hunt, Benford and Snow 1994). In movements, frames attach characteristics and definitions to
people and issues in space and time – they attribute blame, outline alternative paths and means of
achieving goals. They perform the role, that is, of interpreting the significance of a person, an event
or a symbol- each frame spells an attempt to align individual and collective identities, thus
highlighting the role of social movements as constant builders and interpreters of situations rather
than as carriers of fixed identities (Snow 2004). These framing processes (since the image is of
actors constantly shifting and building on frames) are explicitly rooted in a constructionist
perspective – “The framing perspective is rooted in the symbolic interactionist and constructionist
principle that meanings do not automatically or naturally attach themselves to the objects, events, or
experiences we encounter, but often arise, instead, through interactively based interpretive
processes” (Snow 2004: 384).

Framing, in other words, requires work, and the literature on the subject also develops various
categories of frames as well as framing work that aid analysts in making sense of movement
discourses. The information contained in a frame may thus be: 1) diagnostic – that is information
identifying a problem; 2) prognostic – information on how this problem should best be solved; or 3)
motivational – encouraging action to draw attention to or solve this problem. According to Benford
and Snow, “Collective action frames are constructed in part as movement adherents negotiate a
shared understanding of some problematic condition or situation they define as in need of change,
make attributions regarding who or what is to blame, articulate an alternative set of arrangements,
and urge others to act in concert to affect change” (2000: 615).
Benford and Snow are also explicit about the many different techniques that social movements may
employ in framing: “Frames are developed, generated, and elaborated on not only via attending to
the three core framing tasks discussed above, but also by way of three sets of overlapping processes
that can be conceptualized as discursive, strategic, and contested” (ibid: 623). Discursive processes
are described as utterances, that is speech acts and written communications. In framing processes,
such utterance contribute by articulation – “the connection and alignment of events and experiences
so that they hang together in a relatively unified and compelling fashion” (ibid: 623), and
amplification – stressing the importance of certain issues, events, or beliefs in order to make them
more salient. Logically, a coherent argument will produce a frame that is more acceptable and
therefore more likely to be acted upon (Gerhards and Rucht 1992). Strategic processes are therefore
aimed at building frames to achieve a specific purpose. Here the authors identify four tactics: frame
alignment of bridging, frame amplification, frame extension and frame transformation.

Frame bridging or alignment is especially interesting when looking at movements and issues of a
transnational character (see for example Ruzza 2004, Parks 2009). Indeed, it has been described as
the most widely employed strategic framing action within movements, defined as “the linking of
two or more ideologically congruent but structurally unconnected frames regarding a particular
issue or problem” (Snow and Benford 2000: 624). Another strategic framing process that is very
important in transnational movements is diffusion. While frame bridging deals with the fusion of
two or more frames, diffusion looks at how a frame travels among different groups or the same
groups at different levels. Indeed, diffusion is most often employed as a concept to look at frames
moving across national borders. Once again, Snow and Benford (1999) are at the forefront in the
field, detailing how frames elaborated at the national level can be transferred over national
boundaries via diffusion, meaning the “flow of social practices among actors within some larger
system” (Strang and Meyer 1993 cited in Soule 2004). Frame diffusion, which may occur both
actively through the deliberate efforts of movement actors, or more passively - even undesired -
through external channels like the media,2 which may diffuse frames of their own accord (della
Porta and Kriesi 1999), takes place when a frame (the ‘innovation’ in the language of diffusion) is
useful to both parties involved (‘transmitter’ and ‘adopter’ respectively), when both share some
basic cultural or structural characteristics and are in some way linked (Snow and Benford 1999: 24).
Two main models are envisaged for diffusion: the hierarchical model and the proximal model,
within which diffusion may take place either through direct or indirect links (Soule 2004). In the
former, diffusion occurs in a trickle-down form, with a leading individual or organisation diffusing
2
The label of ‘indignados’ given the Spanish 15M movement by the mass media, never used by those involved in the
movement before, springs to mind here.
frames downwards to lower organisations or actors. In the latter, organisations or individuals
“mimic others who are spatially or culturally relevant to them” (ibid: 295).

Concerning the conscious and deliberate use of diffusion, Snow and Benford (1999) see the
important factor in the process not in the actual mechanical act of diffusion but in the manipulation
and interpretation of a frame in order to fit a new societal context. They develop a typology of
diffusion accordingly. Reciprocation occurs when both the transmitter and the adopter actively take
an interest in the process. Where only the adopter takes an active interest, adaptation takes place,
whilst accommodation describes the opposite situation. Finally, ‘contagion’ describes diffusion
between two passive actors, although there is little empirical evidence of such processes.3

The framing processes underway in the climate movement mentioned in the introduction form part
of this natural and ongoing process of definition that takes place in all movements. The crisis
marked by the perceived failure of the Copenhaghen talks appears as the crucial trigger for this
particularly intensive period of framing work – shifting the view of the movement from climate
change to climate justice broadens the movement’s view in two main ways. First, it broadens the
view of the problem it wishes to solve. Climate justice as a frame allows for actions that can be
pursued through much more local and active channels, whereas it may be argued that climate
change could only effectively be pursued through pressuring international organisations and
national governments. Thus, climate justice as a frame brings the movement back to its radical roots
– this target can be pursued by concrete action at local levels. Second, the climate justice frame is
broader in its appeal, allowing the movement to (re)connect to other movements that its framing
work identifies as linked and pertinent to its own goals. As will be demonstrated below, frame
bridging work is taking place to begin connecting climate issues with the social justice and anti-war
movements (thus perhaps moving back towards the original ‘Greenpeace’ ethos). In a nutshell, the
crisis of the climate ‘change’ movement in the failure of international negotiations has sparked a
necessary reframing period to revitalise the movement around the frame of ‘climate justice’. While
framing process are by their very nature ongoing, it seems that the master frame of climate change
has shifted to climate justice for a considerable period to come. The following takes a closer look
at the mechanisms used to make this shift.

Interpreting recent developments in the climate movement

3
There are clear parallels here with the similar ideas elaborated by Tarrow and McAdam (2005). Their concepts of
‘scale shift’ and ‘brokerage’ may also be referred to here, but for simplicity’s sake I stick to the language employed in
the specific literature on framing.
Much of the recent discussion within the climate movement has focused on the two perceived
‘camps’ within the same, that is the more radical, direct-action oriented elements of the movement
(Rising Tide, the Climate Camps), which I shall label (for the sake of simplicity) the climate justice
stream,4 as opposed to coalitions such as Stop Climate Chaos! Steered by the (now) more
established NGOs such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and others, which I shall call the
climate change stream. This cleavage between more radical and more moderate wings of the
movement is of course a fairly common one (seen for example to different extents in different
branches of many movements, such as the workers’ movement or the global justice movement’s
infamous ‘black bloc’ to name but two). Nevertheless, it is a historically pronounced one in the
environmental movement generally, dating back to the distinctions between ‘environment’ and
‘conservation’ (Dalton 1994). Using the categories of diagnostic, prognostic and motivational
framing allows us to sketch a comprehensive yet concise portrait of their different viewpoints.5

The diagnostic frames of the two sectors of the climate movement share the basic understanding
that humankind is responsible for changes in the climate of the planet that will have catastrophic
effects should they go unchecked. They both therefore attribute blame to the same area. Where the
story gets interesting is where diagnostic and prognostic frames are stated together, broaching the
joined issues of the cause and solution to this disastrous scenario. The more climate justice part of
the movement, which stated its understanding of the solution to the crisis more vocally following
the failure of COP 15 in Copenhagen,6 sees the solution in deep-seated lifestyle changes and the end
of the capitalist economic system. Rising Tide, in its aforementioned discussion paper reacting to
the Copenhagen debacle in late 2009, notes that “politicians and corporations will not solve the
climate crisis” (Rising Tide 2010). The Climate Camp Reader ‘Criticism Without Critique’
provides more detail:

4 “The first-ever Climate Justice Summit took place in The Hague, Netherlands, in November 2000 at the same time as
the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC). More than 500
grassroots leaders from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and North America gathered to build bridges across borders and
thematic issues” (Chawla 2009). The climate justice discourse is thus older than may be immediately understood from
these labels, but since it can generally be identified with a stream within the climate movement that has become steadily
more radical and connected to other movements, I feel the label is a fair one.
5
The general analysis presented here is not intended to be exhaustive. It relies mainly on material from Rising Tide and
the Climate Camp for frames in the more ‘radical’ sector of the movement, and on the Climate Action Network and
Stop Climate Chaos! coalitions for that sector of the movement based on more established NGOs.
6
Although as Tokar notes “For over a year prior to the Copenhagen meetings, activists concluded that this summit
would likely fall far short of what the world needs to prevent unprecedented climate disruptions, and pledged a
commitment to direct action against the root causes of climate change. In the summer of 2009, activists from more than
20 countries, including several from the global South, gathered as part of an emerging Climate Justice Action network,
and agreed on an ambitious alternative agenda to the increasingly business-dominated deal-making at the UN level.”
(2010: 7-8)
“..it is apparent that there is a need for two things. Firstly, a greater visibility for the anarchist roots
within the day to day life of the CCA process and proposals. Secondly, and just as important, a
more open and explicit critique of capitalism and how it is the root cause of climate change” (Shift
Magazine / dysophia 2010: 4).
And “the power of the Camp has always been the promise of a genuine alternative action” (ibid: 4).

This highlights the divergence between the different types of groups active in the movement, or
indeed within the same actions as the case of the Camp for Climate Action shows, in terms of
diagnosis and prognosis. While the climate justice section of the movement sees the root cause of
environmental meltdown not merely in humankind, but in capitalist humankind, and therefore the
solution in an end to this system, the more established NGO-based climate change part of the
movement, albeit critical of the global economic system, accepts its existence and seeks to
encourage changes in it to mitigate climate change (for a similar reading of this split see Tokar
2010, also Dietz 2010: 12). The Stop Climate Chaos! UK coalition, for example, state they are “The
UK’s largest group of people dedicated to action on climate change and limiting its impact on the
world’s poorest communities”7 and that they “demand practical action by the UK to keep global
warming as far as possible below the 2 degrees C danger threshold”.8 The international Climate
Action Network, similarly, are “working to promote government and individual action to limit
human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels”.9 This more moderate vein in the
movement is thus dedicated to solutions, or better limitation, achieved within the existing
institutional sphere by pushing the ‘green economy’ agenda. In the same vein, the difference
between the two strands within the movement is highlighted in the more moderate groups’ focus on
achieving technical goals (such as certain percentages of carbon emissions cuts or limitations to a
certain number of degrees warming of the global climate) and the more radical climate justice
discourse on fundamental change of our global economic system and lifestyles.

The difference between the two streams is also, as may well be imagined, played out in terms of
motivational frames and to some extent the actions to be used to secure changes. In a nutshell, while
both streams use direct action techniques, they do so in more and less radical ways with a view to
achieving the radical and institutional changes touched on above. What is labelled here is the
climate justice part of the movement is explicit in the reasoning behind the need for radical and
sometimes illegal direct action.

7
http://www.stopclimatechaos.org/we-are, accessed 8 June 2012, emphasis added.
8
See note 5.
9
http://www.climatenetwork.org/about/about-can, accessed 8 June 2012.
“The climate movement needs to shift gears from what has been a largely symbolic movement to
one that is directly disrupting destructive industries. (…) Our movement needs to judge its progress
not by how many media hits our action got nor how many people read our blogs, but by how many
power plants we’ve put out of business..” (Rising Tide North America 2010: 10).

This need to ‘shift gears’ indicates that direct action of this kind is indeed new to a movement best
know for a strategy relying on media stunts carried out by small numbers, what has been called a
“movement without protest” (della Porta and Diani 2004). The need to engage in new kinds of
direct protest with concrete effects for solving the climate disaster is expressed in an explicit
discourse directed against the established NGOs working within rather than against the current
institutions and economic system.

“These groups, ostensibly fighting on our behalf, have chosen to ally themselves with the very
system that we must dismantle in order to avert climate chaos. (…) The fundamental message
coming from mainstream groups is: All we have to do is switch our current society from carbon
intensive fuels to low carbon fuel sources and implement energy efficiency measures. We don’t
have to fundamentally change our lifestyles, or this economic system” (Rising Tide North America
2010: 6)

Similar frames are also found within the Camp for Climate Action in the UK, where founding
members of the camps felt the original reasons of their action had been slowly changed and taken
over by others more committed to the sorts of actions and ‘green economy’ solutions advocated by
the larger and more moderate NGOs.

“we had opened up an exciting political space from where to challenge the status quo, but it was
being filled with a message that was no longer our own. We were becoming a hip, media-savvy
campaign of flash mobs and publicity stunts, lobbying for tighter government control of our
lifestyles. “Friends of the Earth with D-locks” as one of our contributors wrote in the first issue of
Shift” (Shift Magazine / dysophia 2010: 7).

Even where the repertoire of contention of the climate change stream of the movement may then
certainly by termed as unconventional and even contentious, we can therefore see a clear juncture
where the climate justice stream of the movement clearly calls for more radical, hands-on and
immediately effective action rather than symbolic events designed to raise awareness, change habits
and increase pressure on institutional actors. In this sense the climate justice section of the
movement actually seems to be taking a step back in time and coming closer to more traditional
direct action tactics and civil disobedience as seen in the anti-nuclear movement and US civil rights
movements for example.

Indeed, this step back in time to the traditions of other movements in terms of contentious strategies
is also mirrored in the climate justice stream’s particular efforts at frame bridging the climate
problem with other movements’ grievances. Here, the same may also be said of the climate change
groups, and the frame bridges reflect similar (but less obvious perhaps) divisions in other
movements between more radical and more moderate strands. For example, Chawla notes that the
declaration issued at the end of the first Climate Justice Summit in November 2000 read “We affirm
that climate change is a rights issue. It affects our livelihoods, our health, our children and our
natural resources. We will build alliances across states and borders to oppose climate change
inducing patterns and advocate for and practice sustainable development”. We see therefore that the
frames of climate change are bridged with frames concerning human rights in order to produce a
‘climate justice’ frame, in this case linked with a moderate plan of action towards sustainable
development.10 The framing work undertaken in the more radical climate justice discourse, is
however more explicit and moves further than rights issues in the bridges it builds.

Tokar (2010) provides us a pithy overview of the ways in which climate change is linked with
problems tackled by other movements, namely the anti-war and global justice movements,
highlighting that “This [climate justice] movement is sharply focused on the social justice
implications of the global climate crisis, highlighting the voices of those already massively affected
by the heating of the earth. It is linked to antiwar efforts, demonstrating how continuing US military
adventures, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are without question the most grotesquely
energy-wasting activities on the planet” (Ibid: 10). Returning to the example of the Rising Tide
North America group, serious discussion of these frame bridges and how they should be rolled out
is offered.

“A notable missing link within our climate movement, even in circles that are more concerned with
social justice issues, is a connection with the anti-war movement. Not only is the US military the

10
As is obvious here, the frame of ‘climate justice’ is by no means exclusive to the more radical section of the
movement I identify it with here. These labels are merely intended to facilitate the differentiation of what are in reality
very intermingled streams within the movement.
biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the world, it is often the preferred tool to secure energy supplies
for the US (…) The climate movement must stand in solidarity with peoples displaced by the
impacts of rich nations’ emissions and false solutions. This means active opposition to racist anti-
immigrant policies while joining in struggle and building solidarity with communities displaced by
pollution and economic policies (…) As one movement among many fighting for a just future, we
must always remember that our struggles are connected (…) Wherever possible we need to find
common cause with other movements and extend our solidarity to them” (Rising Tide North
America 2010: 12-14)

Frank framing discussions such as these demonstrate that a process of active frame diffusion is
taking place within this more radical part of the movement.

Finally, attempts towards the diffusion of this new frame of climate justice, and through this the
joining of struggles, is also evident in the numbers of coalitions, networks and summits of groups
active on climate issues. Chawla notes, in relation to the more moderate stream, that “climate justice
movements collaborate closely with NGOs that in turn incorporate the movement’s principles into
proposals they submit to the UNFCCC Secretariat.” (2009) Thus the broadening value of the
climate justice frame, as mentioned earlier, may help to rejuvenate both more radical and more
moderate parts of the movement. Just as more radical and more moderate winds within movements
are common, so this frame which allows more linkages to be built will apply to those parts in other
movements as illustrated in the previous quote. Whether the two parts of the movement can
overcome their considerable differences as to what they believe the best course of action to stop
climate change is of course another question. On the basis of the discourses in the documents drawn
on for this analysis, the gap between the two seems wide, although there are signs that some are
attempting to bridge it.11

Tokar, on the more radical stream, underlines that “In the fall of 2008, U.S. organizations actively
working for climate justice both nationally and internationally, including Indigenous Environmental
Network, Global Justice Ecology Project and Rising Tide North America, launched the
Mobilization for Climate Justice. The Mobilization was founded to link the climate struggle in the
US to the growing international climate justice movement, with an eye toward building for actions
around the 2009 UN climate summit and beyond. Its objective was to provide a justice-based

11
See for example the open letter by 1Sky, available here: http://www.1sky.org/openletter and a response by a large
number of grassroots groups available here: http://understory.ran.org/2010/10/27/grassroots-organizing-cools-the-
planet-a-letter-from-the-grassroots-to-1-sky/, last accessed 17 October 2012.
framework for organizing around climate change that opened space for leadership by
representatives of communities in the US that are most impacted by climate change and the fossil
fuel industry” (2010: 9). And again, speaking of the importance of the climate issue at the 2009
World Social Forum, Smythe and Byrd (2010) note that “The issue of climate change intersected
with many other themes and activities during the Belem WSF—from trade to tourism, women’s and
indigenous rights, food sovereignty and housing. Climate Justice Now!, a network of over 200
organizations from both the global south and north, held extensive meetings focusing on climate
and ecological debt, the Amazon, and false solutions to the climate crisis. They also used the Forum
as an opportunity to empower participation by more southern organizations, especially indigenous
groups from the Amazon and the rest of South America (Byrd).”

Clearly the challenge for diffusion here is also found in the fact that those most affected by climate
change are in the global south, while the strongest and most established climate movements
originate in the global north. This aspect contributes to the difficulties of reconciling the two
streams within the movement. To put it into the theoretical language, the two streams share a basic
diagnosis but diverge considerably in terms of the prognoses and motivations. Frame amplification
of the climate justice frame appears necessary to a larger extent than detected in order to the bring
the moderate stream of the movement into the fold. Some efforts at reciprocal diffusion of the
climate justice frame can be seen within these networks, and stronger indications still in events such
as the summit convened in Cochabamba in Bolivia in 2010 (see Klein 2010). A particularly
interesting piece of anecdotal evidence in this direction can also be found in the importance of
former Climate Camp members in the establishment of the Occupy LSX camp in London,12 and the
distillation of the camp’s central preoccupations in climate justice and internet freedoms (Kaldor
and Selchow, forthcoming (2013). Similar connections are also being observed in the US.13 If this
move away from a specific climate justice movement and towards a wider multi-issue movement
seeking justice for inequalities throughout the globe is anything to go by, the frames of solidarity
with other movements will indeed take hold and the climate movement’s nascent bridging work
should take off.

Conclusions

12
Conversation with activist involved in Occupy Times of London, June 2012.
13
See for example articles on Occupy and the Climate Movement at 350.org, http://www.350.org/en/node/27881, and
the solidarity statement of Rising Tide North America with Occupy Oakland, http://occupyoakland.org/2012/02/rising-
tide-north-america-states-solidarity-with-occupy-oakland/ both accessed 17 October 2012. My particular thanks to
Matthias Dietz for directing me to the American evidence.
The climate movement has gone through a significant period of re-framing in recent years. This
seems to have taken hold more within the more radical stream of the movement, which has
embraced the climate justice frame and is seeking to broaden its action repertoire and link with
other movements. Whether this frame can take hold in the more moderate part of the movement
remains to be seen, and will depend on the will of movement actors to tolerate different methods for
acting in the same area, and indeed on whether the movement becomes part of a wider and more
generalised social movement for global justice as seen in the recent Occupy movement.

Our brief and somewhat anecdotal glance at recent frames and framing work taking place in the
climate movement has shed light on how this particular literature from the growing library of social
movement theory can help us make sense of the changes within the movement. Focusing on the
sometimes competing and sometimes complementary diagnostic, prognostic and motivational
frames found within the two main streams of the climate movement, labelled here as the ‘climate
change’ and ‘climate justice’ strands, we have attempted to show how each develops its
understandings, suggested solutions and actions in line with two different readings of how climate
change should best be tackled. For the more moderate strand this should essentially be achieved via
progressive improvements within the current institutional frameworks, while for the more radical
strand the unique solution lies in the dismantling of the global capitalist system. Looking at how
these frames unfold also highlights the important point that frames are indeed developed “through
interactively based processes” rather than somehow fixed and transmitted down the line (Snow and
Benford 2004: 384). Movements are dynamic, fluid and changing things, as the divergent paths
emerging within the climate movement amply demonstrate, and framing can indeed be a hotly
contested issue in itself. Preoccupations with openness, democracy and above all representation
within the more radical climate justice sector of the movement also pay testament to this, with
various groups discussing the importance of having no ‘spokesperson’ who claims to represent the
movement throwing up parallels with the debates raging over the frames the movement should
adopt, and the solidarity it should display.

The short analysis also pointed to the work of frame bridging as especially pertinent in recent years
with the move away from ‘climate change’ and towards the ‘climate justice’ frame among some in
the movement, with a number of sources indicating the explicit goal of linking the climate
movement with the struggles of other movements, most prominently the anti-war and global justice
movements. While the literature on framing can certainly help us understand the discursive shifts
within the movement, other theoretical approaches are of course needed to interpret recent changes
– in particular, political process theory would seem to explain the need for the discursive shift in
light of the failure of talks in Copenhaghen. Network analyses would also certainly be useful to
provide evidence of the movement’s linking to others through frame bridging – is this pure talk or
are concrete links being forged?

A final question is that of what these very public debates over framing work can teach scholars of
social movements and framing in particular? It seems clear that the current scholarly work on frame
bridging does not quite do justice to how these frames were developed in contentious dialogue
across national and movement borders. General excitement in the field of social movement studies
about the possibilities for social mobilization provided by modern communication technologies and
the internet especially have often been limited to comments about how it may be used as an
organisational tool by resource-poor actors (Mattoni 2009). But a more recent and cutting edge
body of work also considers the potential of interactive technology (the web 2.0) in terms not only
of how it facilitates exchanges across the globe but also in terms of how its users create commons
and collective knowledge (Fuster Morell 2011). The development of the climate justice frame in
public and open debate, and in a manner that has meant it is not associated with any one particular
group or charismatic leader seems to reflect this commons culture of shared ownership that has
been born with the coming-of-age of the on-line generation (della Porta and Mattoni 2012). The
case of the climate movement therefore underlines a need to bring the framing literature into a
similar dialogue with those strands of the media and communications studies literature that deal in
particular with social movements if we are to prove the importance of new technologies for framing
processes in today’s world.

References

Benford, Robert D. and David A. Snow, 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An
Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology. No. 26, pp. 611-639.

Busby, Joshua W., 2010. Moral Movements and Foreign Policy. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.

Chawla, Ambika, 2009. Climate Justice Movements Gather Strength, in State of the World 2009,
Worldwatch Institute. www.worldwatch.org/stateoftheworld.

Dalton, Russell J. 1994. The Green Rainbow: Environmental Groups in Western Europe. Yale
University Press.

della Porta, Donatella (ed.), 2007. The Global Justice Movement. Cross National and Transnational
perspectives, Boulder Co. Paradigm.

della Porta, Donatella, 2005. Multiple belongings, tolerant identities and the construction of ‘another
politics’, in della Porta, Donatella and Sidney Tarrow (eds.), Transnational Protest and Global Activism,
New York, Rowman and Littlefield, pp.175-202

della Porta, Donatella and Mario Diani, 2006. Movimenti senza protesta? L’ambientalismo in Italia.
Bologna, Il Mulino.

della Porta, Donatella and Hanspeter Kriesi, 1999, Social Movements in a Globalizing
World: an Introduction, in della Porta, Donatella and Hanpeter Kriesi (eds.): Social Movements in
a Globalizing World. New York, St Martin’s Press.

della Porta, Donatella and Alice Mattoni, 2012. “Cultures of Participation and Social Movements”
in Delwiche Aaron and Jennifer Jacobs Henderson (eds) The Participatory Cultures Handbook,
Routledge, London, pp. 171-181.

Dietz, Matthias 2010. Gibt es eine internationale Klimabewegung? Ein skeptischer Befund. In,
Forschungssjournal Neue Soziale.

Fuster Morell, M. (2011). An introductory historical contextualization of online creation

communities for the building of digital commons: The emergence of a free culture movement.
Proceedings 7th International Conference on Internet, Law & Politics (IDP 2011): Net Neutrality
and other challenges for the future of the Internet.
http://edcp.uoc.edu/symposia/idp2011/proceedings/

Gamson, William A., 1985: Goffman’s Legacy to Political Sociology. Theory and Society. Vol.
14, No. 5, pp. 605-622.

Gerhards, J and D. Rucht, 1992. Mesomobilization: Organization and Framing in Two Protest
Campaigns in West Germany. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 98, No. 3, pp. 555-596.

Hunt, Scott A., Robert D. Benford and David A. Snow, 1994: Identity Fields: Framing Processes
and the Social Construction of Movement Identities in Laraña, Enrique, Hank Johnston, and Joseph
R. Gusfield (eds.): New Social Movements: from ideology to identity. Philadelphia, Temple
University Press.

Kaldor, Mary and Sabine Selchow (eds.), forthcoming (2013). Subterranean Politics in Europe.
Palgrave Macmillan.

Klein, Naomi, 2010. A New Climate Movement in Bolivia. Article published in The Nation, 10
May 2010.

Mattoni, Alice. 2009. “Organisation, Mobilisation and Identity: National and Transnational
Grassroots Campaigns Between Face-to-face and Computer-mediated-communication.” In Political
Campaigning on the Web, ed. Sigrid Baringhorst, Veronika Kneip, and Johanna Niesyto, 199–231.
Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.

Parks, Louisa. 2009. ‘In the corridors and in the streets: a comparative study of the impacts of
social movement campaigns in the EU’. Doctoral thesis. European University Institute, Florence.
 Rising Tide North America, February 2010. The Climate Movement is Dead: Long Live the
Climate Movement. Available at www.risingtidenorthamerica.org (accessed 9 June 2012).

Ruzza, Carlo, 2004. Europe and Civil Society : Movement coalitions and European governance.
Manchester, Manchester University Press.

Shift Magazine / dysophia, January 2010. Criticism without Critique: a climate camp reader.
Available at http://dysophia.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cca_reader.pdf (accessed 8 June 2012).

Snow, David A., 2004. Framing Processes, Ideology, and Discursive Fields in Snow, David A.,
Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi (eds.). The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements,
Oxford, Blackwell.

Smythe, Elizabeth and Scott C. Byrd, 2010, World Social Forum Activism in Belém and Beyond.
Journal of World Systems Research, Volume XVI, Number 1, Pages 94-105.

Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford, 1999. Alternative Types of Cross-National Diffusion in
the Social Movement Arena in della Porta, Donatella and Hanpeter Kriesi (eds.): Social Movements
in a Globalizing World. New York, St Martin’s Press.

Soule, Sarah A., 2004. Diffusion Processes within and across Movements in Snow, David A.,
Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi (eds.). The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements,
Oxford, Blackwell.

Tarrow, Sidney and Doug McAdam, 2005. Scale Shift in Transnational Contention in della Porta,
Donatella and Sidney Tarrow (eds.). Transnational Protest and Global Activism. Lanham,
Rowman and Littlefield.

Tilly, C. (1978) From Mobilization to Revolution, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

--(1984) ‘Social Movements and National Politics’, in C. Bright and S. Harding (eds), State-Making
and Social Movements: Essays in history and theory, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp.
297-317.

Tokar, Brian 2010. Toward a Movement for Climate Justice, in Uses of a Whirlwind:
Contemporary Radical Currents in the US, AK Press.

View publication stats