A Critical Discourse Analysis of Statements on Climate Action and Cooperation at COP27

This dissertation looked at “what we talk about when we talk about climate change,” comparing the discourses used by fossil fuel producers, those most vulnerable to climate change, and ENGOs at climate change negotiations. Using a critical discourse analysis, the research found a difference in discourse between these groups as well as within the groups based on if the actor was a party or an observer to the UNFCCC. Parties, both fossil fuel producers and those most vulnerable, often employed green governmentality and ecological modernization discourses. Fossil fuel observers used energy security discourses. ENGOs, as well as some vulnerable parties employed climate justice and populist discourses.

Whom do they protect? Security frames in military climate strategies

Despite heightened awareness of climate change, military administrations prioritize national security over human and ecological security, evident in their strategies and actions where national objectives take precedence. The military's discourse on climate security often portrays vulnerable groups in the global south as threats rather than recognizing them as the ones threatened, potentially leading to security measures that harm these populations, such as strict state protection against migrants at external borders. The thesis emphasizes the impact of securitizing actors and unequal power relations on dominating the climate security discourse, advocating for a broader perspective that extends beyond national security to address the needs of vulnerable individuals, communities, and ecosystems.

What Is The Glasgow Climate Pact?

The most high-profile commitment of the Glasgow Climate Pact was the promise to ‘phasedown’ coal use - rather than to phase it out. However, the pact did mark the first time in the UN climate process that the Parties recognised the need to rapidly reduce coal The Glasgow Climate Pact promised progress on finance, adaptation, Article 6, and employed strong language supporting the scientific consensus on climate change. Loss and damage and nature and biodiversity received far fewer concrete commitments in the final draft.