Comparative analysis of UK and Lithuanian political institutional communicative climate change discourses.

Straipsnyje analizuojami klimato kaitos rizikos naratyvai instituciniuose politiniuose diskursuose. Remiamasi politiniais komunikaciniais Jungtinės Karalystės ir Lietuvos vyriausybių tekstais, publikuotais 2015–2016 m., t. y. metus iki ir metus po 2015 m. gruodžio mėn. paskelbto Paryžiaus susitarimo. Empirinė tyrimo duomenų analizė ir interpretacija remiasi rizikos santykio teorija, kritiškosios diskurso analizės modeliu, taikoma tarpdiskursyvumo samprata ir interpretacijų repertuarų teorine idėja. Pateikiami duomenimis grįsti atsakymai į kelis probleminius klausimus: kokios grėsmės paprastai siejamos su klimato kaita, t. y. kokie rizikos šaltiniai aptariami; kokie diskurso veikėjai ar vertybės yra minimi kaip „esantys grėsmėje“, kokie diskursyviai konstruojami rizikos šaltinio ir objekto rizikos zonose santykiai; koks yra tipinių, su klimato kaita siejamų rizikų naratyvų repertuaras; koks tarpdiskursyvumas plėtojamas klimato kaitos politiniuose diskursuose.The aim of this paper is to analyse the ways how climate change related risks are being constructed in political institutional discourses. We draw upon the political communicative texts, i.e. texts prepared by governmental authorities, from the pre- and post-Paris agreement period, i.e. 2015–2016. Our empirical analysis is guided by the relational theory of risk, theory of discursive institutionalism, critical discourse analysis, notions of interdiscursivity and interpretive repertoires. The main research questions are the following: What are the threats typically associated with climate change (source of risk)?; What are the objects-at-risk typically spoken of in political communicative discourses?; How are the relations of the risk source and object-at-risk discursively constructed (e.g. vulnerability, resilience, etc.)?; What is the overall ‘repertoire’ of typical climate change related risks as discursively constructed in political communicative texts? To answer the research questions, Lithuania and United Kingdom are taken for cross-national comparison. UK is regarded as a leader in international and domestic climate change policy, whereas climate change policies are treated instrumentally in Lithuania. Both Lithuania and UK, as EU member states, follow the general EU climate change policy. Yet because of differences in public attitudes and other socio-political contexts, the effectiveness of climate change policies is different. Contrasting the two member states and looking for underlying discursive practices, that serve as grounds for climate action, bring new scientific insights. The analysis of the sampled texts is conducted using NVivo