McHugh et al. - Risk. Crisis. Emergency

Question 1

What are the 4 pathways of framing?

Answer 1

emergency as an opportunity –> framing treatment policy
emergency as a threat –> framing placebo policy
no emergency but recognize risk –> framing that risk-based policy change is needed
no emergency –> framing no policy change is needed

Question 2

How did the people’s view changed regarding the climate change topic?

Answer 2

“future risk” → “current crisis”

Question 3

What could the framing “emergency” cause? (more negativ)

Answer 3

• overlook other important issues
• not choosing the optimal solution bc of time pressure
• anti-democratic behavior
• setting unlikely-reachable targets

Question 4

When did the “climate emergency” frame start to be dominant?

Answer 4

In 2019, climate change framing shifted dramatically, with the “climate emergency” entering mainstream discourse across the media worldwide

Question 5

Whats the difference between “risk” and “crisis/emergency”?

Answer 5

• Emergency/crisis convey immediate danger while risk sees a threat more in the future
• Crisis describes more a broad range of threats while emergency describe more urgent and impactful phenonema (like disasters)

Question 6

What could be the results of an emergency framing? (more positiv view)

Answer 6

• stimulate political action because of higher pressure
• government shift
• more bipartisanship
• higher attention to the topic
• smaller group of key decision makers
• power balance of subsystems can change
• large shifts in resources
• increased executive powers relative to legislature