How can framing of climate action create a social mandate for change? A case study of communications used in Scotland’s Climate Assembly.

The IPCC continues to communicate with a high degree of certainty that global climate change is human-induced and that if current trends persist,/ the consequences will be far-reaching, costly, and potentially catastrophic. Governments are discovering that they are not on track to meet their emission reduction targets and in response are turning to deliberative democracy efforts, such as citizen’s assemblies, to help expedite robust climate policies. The way climate science and the need for climate action is explained and framed during climate assemblies can affect how the public conceptualizes the climate crisis and therefore how individuals and societies choose to act. In 2020, the Scottish Government hosted a virtual climate assembly with over 100 people from across Scotland to consider the question: “How should Scotland change to tackle the climate emergency in an effective and fair way?” This study considers how framing techniques used by presenters to discuss climate change and climate action may have affected the outcome and framing of recommendations in the final report. Presenters discussed climate action in terms of incremental changes whereas assembly members proposed transformational actions in their final report. Presenters used emotional framings such as Acceptance, Reassurance, Responsibility, and Sense of Urgency, whereas the most common emotional frame used in the recommendations was National Pride in Leadership. Both presenters and members described climate change as an issue for current and future generations. These findings have implications for the effectiveness of framing techniques and deliberative processes in engaging the Scottish public and wider society in climate action and advocacy.