The European Parliament’s vote on the European Climate Law was a controversial and pivotal battle ground for the climate politics, with the Greens and The Left joining the far-right Identity &...Show moreThe European Parliament’s vote on the European Climate Law was a controversial and pivotal battle ground for the climate politics, with the Greens and The Left joining the far-right Identity & Democracy Group in a vote against the law, while the Socialists and European People’s Party voted in favor. Expert analyses judge the Climate Law as insufficiently ambitious in light of the European Union’s targets set out in the Paris Agreement. This thesis, using Habermas’ theory on deliberative democracy as a framework, focuses on the European Parliament’s plenary debates on the European Climate Law to investigate whether democratic deliberation has a connection with climate policymaking. By conducting a discourse analysis of plenary debates using the Discourse Quality Index, this thesis explores the connection between deliberation and climate policy. The debates on the European Climate Law are analyzed, including a total of 141 speeches. As political groups have a high level of internal cohesion, the results are broken down according to political groups and their respective votes on the EU’s Climate Law. The results show that the political groups which voted against the climate law - due to its lack of ambition – had the highest quality of deliberation in the debates. The group which voted against the law - due to it being too ambitious – had the lowest quality of deliberation. These results suggest that a higher quality of deliberation is associated with more ambitious climate policy. The findings of this thesis thereby support the idea that strengthening deliberative democracy has the potential of making climate policymaking more aligned with the ambition of the Paris Agreement.Show less
How have framings of climate change in European Parliamentary debates been used as a tool for attempted influence over the European Union’s long-term climate strategy in the aftermath of the 2015...Show moreHow have framings of climate change in European Parliamentary debates been used as a tool for attempted influence over the European Union’s long-term climate strategy in the aftermath of the 2015 Paris agreement? This single case study conducts a qualitative content analysis on the debates around, and the content of, the European Climate Law from 2021. The study tests the relevance and applicability of the Copenhagen school of securitisation theory, with the aim to contribute toward a deeper understanding of the European, and global, lack of effort to combat climate change. It can be concluded that framings of climate change in the European Parliamentary debates have been used as tools for attempted influence over the European Climate Law, in that the debates have been characterised by (unsuccessful) securitisation attempts.Show less
For many years, the European Commission has been a champion for the environmental acquis Communautaire of the EU. In December 2019, it reinforced this role with the introduction of the EU’s new...Show moreFor many years, the European Commission has been a champion for the environmental acquis Communautaire of the EU. In December 2019, it reinforced this role with the introduction of the EU’s new growth strategy: the European Green Deal. Its cornerstone is the first European Climate Law that binds the Union and its member states to climate neutrality targets. The negotiations to adopt this policy proposal happened via trilogues between the Commission, the Council and the Parliament. This research aims to open the doors of this secluded venue of decision-making to better understand the Commission’s role in them. It analyses the role of the European Commission in trilogue negotiations by using two theories: agenda-setting and politicisation. Process-tracing and document analysis were used as the main data collection and analysis methods. The analysis shows that the Commission uses a two-step strategy to be able to influence trilogues. During agenda-setting it uses its informal power to strategically use public support and the support of other institutions and its expertise to shape the future outcome of negotiations and draw on its political resources to act as a policy entrepreneur. After the proposal is on the table, the Commission uses (de)politicisation strategies to influence the negotiations and their outcome. This research shows that Commission’s influence on trilogue negotiations is dependent on its ability to use strategically its political and informal power during all stages of decision-making.Show less
