← Back to Volume 8

Differentiation of Strategies Reflected by The Political Metaphor Use in Global Climate Negotiation: Comparison Between European Union and China

Zihuan Qu
pp.346-359 DOI: 10.62051/7rprmn69 August 9, 2024
Download PDF
Abstract: The positive attitude for global governance will be required in order to successfully address global climate change. Currently there are several examples in global climate negotiation, especially in COP 26, reflected the discordance among strategies of different international entities. In international negotiation, the specific political words that delegates used is efficient for clarifying the strategies, which are called political metaphors. In this study we are looking for metaphors by analyzing the documents from EU and China in UNFCCC. This study explored the domestic and international strategies of China and EU in international climate negotiation, which reflected by the political metaphor. The researcher first collect the documents of EU and China in website of UNFCCC. Meanwhile, we use the corpus tool, Wmatrix, which created by Lancaster University. The tendency of strategy is evaluated by the data we collected and the analysis about the metaphors. Our result show that although EU and China are both in positive attitude about dealing with climate change, they have difference in details. EU tends to formulate the rigid structure under the Paris Agreement. They concentrate on the immediate and most effective measures. By the contrast, China focuses on long-term action by using relevant metaphors. They are trying to establish the new and more sustainable structure, which will be more friendly with countries have high emission and high development requirement at the same time
Keywords: The political metaphor; Climate negotiation; Strategies; European Union; China
APA Citation: Zihuan Qu (2024). Differentiation of Strategies Reflected by The Political Metaphor Use in Global Climate Negotiation: Comparison Between European Union and China. Transactions on Economics, Business and Management Research, 8(1), 346-359. https://doi.org/10.62051/7rprmn69

References

  1. Bäckstrand, K., & Elgström, O. (2013). The EU’s role in climate change negotiations: From leader to ‘leadiator.’ Journal of European Public Policy, 20(10), 1369–1386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.781781
  2. Bernstein, S., & Hoffmann, M. (2019). Climate politics, metaphors and the fractal carbon trap. Nature Climate Change, 9(12), 919–925. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0618-2
  3. Christiansen, A. C., & Wettestad, J. (2003). The EU as a frontrunner on greenhouse gas emissions trading: How did it happen and will the EU succeed? Climate Policy, 3(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2003.0302
  4. da Graça Carvalho, M. (2012). EU energy and climate change strategy. Energy, 40(1), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.01.012
  5. Engels, A. (2018). Understanding how China is championing climate change mitigation. PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS, 6.
  6. Gill, B., & Wacker, G. (n.d.). China’s Rise: Diverging U.S.–EU Perceptions and Approaches. 66.
  7. Grisham, T. (2006). Metaphor, poetry, storytelling and cross‐cultural leadership. Management Decision, 44(4), 486–503. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610663027
  8. Isailovic, M., Widerberg, O., & Pattberg, P. (2013). Fragmentation of Global Environmental Governance Architectures: A Literature Review (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2479930). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2479930
  9. Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The Regime Complex for Climate Change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710004068
  10. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/faces/ViewItemOverviewPage.jsp?itemId=item_2358831
  11. Larson, B. (2011). Metaphors for Environmental Sustainability: Redefining Our Relationship with Nature. Yale University Press.
  12. Oberthür, S., & Dupont, C. (2021). The European Union’s international climate leadership: Towards a grand climate strategy? Journal of European Public Policy, 28(7), 1095–1114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1918218
  13. Parker, C. F., & Karlsson, C. (2017). The European Union as a global climate leader: Confronting aspiration with evidence. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17(4), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9327-8
  14. Parker, C. F., & Karlsson, C. (2018). The UN climate change negotiations and the role of the United States: Assessing American leadership from Copenhagen to Paris. Environmental Politics, 27(3), 519–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1442388
  15. Qi, Y., & Wu, T. (2013). The politics of climate change in China. WIREs Climate Change, 4(4), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.221
  16. Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1996). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy, 9(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02832235
  17. Schimmelfennig, F. (2003). The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric. Cambridge University Press.
  18. Shaw, C., & Nerlich, B. (2015). Metaphor as a mechanism of global climate change governance: A study of international policies, 1992–2012. Ecological Economics, 109, 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.001
  19. Thompson, S. (1996). Politics without Metaphors is Like a Fish without Water. In Metaphor: Implications and Applications. Psychology Press.
  20. Torney, D. (2019). Follow the leader? Conceptualising the relationship between leaders and followers in polycentric climate governance. Environmental Politics, 28(1), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1522029
  21. Zhang, Z. (2017). Are China’s climate commitments in a post-Paris agreement sufficiently ambitious? WIREs Climate Change, 8(2), e443. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.443
  22. Hongyuan Y. (2016). The Paris Agreement, new global climate governance, and China's strategic choices. Pacific Journal, 24(11), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.14015/j.cnki.1004-8049.2016.11.009. Chinese.
  23. Danping W, & Jixian P. (2011). The Persuasive Function and Discourse Strategy of Metaphor in Political Discourse: A Corpus-based Study. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 04, 38-42+47. https://doi.org/10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.000396. Chinese.
  24. Jisheng S. (2009). Linguistic Studies in International Relations Theory: A Review and a Prospect. Foreign Affairs Review, 26(01), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.13569/j.cnki.far.2009.01.006. Chinese.
  25. Xiaojun X. (2015). The Construction of National Identity in Climate Diplomacy: A Case Study of the Speeches of United States, the European Union, and China at the UN Climate Change Conference in Warsaw. Heihe Journal, 07, 58–59. https://doi.org/10.14054/j.cnki.cn23-1120/c.2015.07.023. Chinese
  26. Huiming L. (2015). International leadership in the era of fragmentation of the global climate governance system and China's strategic choice. Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies, 04, 128-156+160. Chinese.
  27. Sisi L. (2016). The construction of the EU's climate discourse and its reference to China. Deutschland-Studien, 31(02), 32-43+130.
  28. Qingqing W. (2013). Metaphors and Identity Constructions in the Discourse of Climate Diplomacy: A Case Study of the Speeches of United Kingdom, Canada, and China at Previous Climate Conferences. Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies 05, 139-156+160. Chinese