ABSTRACT

As the polarisation of climate politics feeds into ‘post-truth’ politics, one response has been a call for the reassertion of a previously agreed upon ‘reality’. However, it is important to recognise that knowledge has always been contested and contingent. This is particularly salient concerning climate change, where multiple truth claims compete in the media, politics, and social movements. One means of addressing this is through deliberation, where it is argued that emotional interpretations of information and lack of trust in authority can be alleviated through transparent democratic processes. Investigating a case study of climate change adaptation in a regional Australian community, we argue that while deliberation may be the preferred method of building community support, emotions can also be employed to undermine scientific authority and build a shared truth among those who see themselves as victims of the process. To this end, we suggest that more radically democratic models are needed to address climate change.

摘要

随着气候政治的两极分化进入“后真相”政治，一种回应是呼吁重申先前商定的“现实”。然而，重要的是要认识到知识总是有争议的和偶然的。这在气候变化方面尤为突出，其中多种真相主张在媒体、政治和社会运动中相互竞争。解决这个问题的一种方法是通过商议，其中有人认为，可以通过透明的民主程序来缓解对信息的情绪化解释和对权威的缺乏信任。调查澳大利亚地区社区气候变化适应的案例研究，我们认为，虽然审议可能是建立社区支持的首选方法，情绪也可以用来破坏科学权威，并在那些认为自己是这个过程的受害者的人之间建立一个共同的真理。为此，我们建议需要更激进的民主模式来应对气候变化。