IndexAbstractIntroductionPositioning of the research in current literatureTopic and methodological discussionResults of the research, analysis and discussionConclusionAbstractClimate change, since the 1970s, has become a science more and more unanimous, with fewer and fewer people who disagree with the idea that man is the cause of climate change, that is, that he is the cause of climate change of origin anthropic. However, the solutions to this problem were considered to be against good economic practice and thus could cause economic harm to any government that implemented them, although this can to some extent be explained as a construction of the discourse used by businesses (such as Big Oil) to prevent the implementation of policies that could harm their profits (Carvalho 2005+2007). This essay will explore how climate change is constructed in modern political discourse, how much time politicians devote to it in their conference speeches, and how much of the posters are taken up by it. It will then explore the effect that natural disasters have on this construction, concluding that they make political rhetoric and construction more environmentally conscious. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay IntroductionThe question this article will attempt to answer relates to how parties use political discourse to represent the environment and the issue of (anthropogenic) climate change. The question of how climate change is portrayed is important because, for most people, politicians and the media are where they absorb the most information regarding scientific issues and how they should influence political decisions. The central argument of this essay will be that, although climate change is, fortunately, virtually unanimously considered to be anthropogenic in the UK, it often takes a back seat in mainstream political discourse, with references to it, for the most part, scarce. However, when natural disasters occur, the discourse will change to appeal to the populist beliefs of the general public in an attempt to gain political standing and increase popularity. To assess the legitimacy of this hypothesis, discourse and content analysis will be conducted on posters and speeches given by party leaders in their respective annual conferences to conclude how climate change is represented in the usual political discourse. Subsequently the same research methods will be applied to leaders' speeches and appearances during natural disasters, such as the UK floods in winter/spring 2013/14. Because the hypothesis being tested focuses on portraying climate change, not questioning it, most of the research and analysis will focus on the period following the publication of the Second Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change in 1995/ 96, as this marked a moment when the science of climate change became an almost unanimously agreed upon fact in politics (save for a few dissenters, especially in the United States). Furthermore, as shown in the graph, compiled with data from the research conducted by Carvalho and Burgess (2005), it marks an increase in media time dedicated to the three "big political newspapers". This also marks the beginning of the “third circuit” on climate change. (Carvalho and Burgess: 2005:1) Situate the research in the current literature Currently, most research on the representation ofClimate change in political discourse seems to focus on the media, particularly broadsheet newspapers, and how they influence and are influenced by science. , popular opinion and policies. (Carvalho & Burgess: 2005, Carvalho: 2007, Zehr: 2000, Bell: 1994) While some research even delves into how media and popular culture, such as Hollywood films with environmental themes and messages, influence perception of the public and shape political discourse (Lowe, Brown et al: 2006) The thesis that seems to be central to much of the current literature seems to be that the “construction” of climate change in political discourse, and the policy recommendations that derive from it, are deeply rooted in ideology (Carvalho: 2007). This argument has been advanced and well hypothesized by Burgess and Carvalho (2005): “Forms of filtering and reinterpreting climate change information are entrenched and reproduce profoundly divergent value systems.” Research on broadsheet newspapers and their representation of climate change in discourse tends to focus on three articles; the Times (right-leaning), the Guardian (left-leaning) and the Independent (bias-free), and analyzes how ideology influences the subject, with the conclusion usually centering on the idea that ideology influences the topic, but that in recent years, with the certainty of anthropogenic climate change, the only difference is the nature of the recommended combat policies. Discussion and Discussion of Methodology The position taken by this work, which research confirms is that climate change, whilst not denied by any politician in the UK, is not a top priority for many of them from a political perspective. Although this may be observed to change when climate change, or more precisely natural disasters, hit the UK. In recent years the evidence of the growing threat that natural disasters pose to Britain is clear. And then the construction of the discourse on climate change; politicians' positions on the effects of man on the environment; and the urgency needed for action; they all become much more intense. This is in an attempt by politicians to gain favor with a public that sees the clear effects of the phenomenon (of climate change) and looks to their leaders as those who can change the situation. The rhetoric on climate change should slow and calm in its urgency once disaster has been averted and the consequences addressed. The methods that will be used to answer this question and prove the hypothesis will focus on political discourse. , and so the two choices are content analysis and also discourse analysis. Although they seem similar, the two methods explore different phenomena and complement each other in terms of answering questions about the construction of climate change discourse. Content analysis is, and will be, used to uncover trends in the discourses and political construction of climate change discourse. It examines the overt contexts of texts and discourses, that is, such things as the number of times a word, phrase, or theme is mentioned in communications (Berelson 1952: 18). In the context of this work the communications chosen were speeches by leaders of political parties at conferences and election posters, in order to observe how political discourse usually deals with the issue of anthropogenic climate change and the policies associated with addressing it and resolving the problem. Then news articles and speeches given by leaders and politicians around and after natural disasters will be analyzed to see if there is a spike in the number of mentions ofwords, phrases and topics related to climate change, which should not be mentioned. the nature of the hypothesis must be given, so that it can be proven right. A small problem with this type of research, focused exclusively on the content of a text, is that political discourse and constructions are not neutral, nor do they exist exclusively in voids. To further understand the nature and construction of climate change in political discourse, discourse analysis will be used in order to gain greater knowledge and understanding of what it is, in the subjective reality of political discourse; “interrelated set(s) of texts and practices” which, through “their production, diffusion and reception… give life to an object”. (Philips and Hardy 2002) The idea behind using discourse analysis together with content analysis boils down to the need to understand the effect with which the timing of construction of a discourse influences the content and meaning being behind it, this gives an obvious need for a great understanding of the context and thematic meanings behind opinion leaders' articles, speeches and other types of communicationResearch results, analysis and discussionThe first phase of research to be used to answer the question about how natural disasters influence the construction of climate change in political discourse consists of applying content analysis to the manifestos of the main parties and analyzing interventions at their respective conferences in order to evaluate the level of time, effort and urgency dedicated to the problem of change climate of anthropogenic origin. Analysis of the manifestos of a large number of parties in global elections dating back decades has been carried out by the Manifesto Project, and this will form the basis for the analysis of the manifestos of the main parties in the UK general election. The table above shows the frequency with which the main parties included environmental welfare policies in their manifestos from the first election in 1974 until the last election in 2010 (the Liberal Democrats were formed after the 1987 election as a merger of various centrist parties, even if this is tangential to the discussion). While this shows some interesting things, such as the fact that after the first IPCC report in 1990 the frequency with which climate change policies appear in a manifesto appears to increase, a similar point can be made for subsequent 2001 election manifestos to the other of the IPCC. relationships. It can be argued that these are the catalyst for the dissemination of knowledge relating to anthropogenic climate change to the public through the media, public bodies and politicians. However, looking at the percentage of posters to which these frequency numbers translate, it may seem that this conclusion is slightly off. Since the table seems to suggest only a slight positive correlation between the percentages of a poster dedicated to environmental policies and the most recent election from which the poster comes. However, if one bears in mind the hypothesis that environmental discourse and policies are used as a kind of popularity gain by politicians, it appears that as the Liberal Democrats have become a more mainstream party and have gained share vote, they reduced the amount of climate policies in their manifestos, in line with what the hypothesis suggests. Similarly, if one considers that the Labor Party was well behind the Conservatives throughout the 1980s, then the reason for the slight increase in attendance from the second election in 1979 throughout the 1980s towards Blair's election victory in 1997, when climate science was much more accepted, thanks to various IPCC reports. This analysis also holds true if yesconsider the jump in frequency in the Conservative manifesto from 22 policies in 1997 to 85 in 2001, at the height of Blair's reign to 9 in 2005, when Blair had apparently held the position for too long. long to maintain his populist status, and at the next general election he was giving way to Gordon Brown regardless of anything else. The reason the chosen sample of posters dates back to 1974, before any IPCC reports, is the decade in which climate science was beginning to see mainstream popularity and acceptance in academic circles. With the beginning of analysis of the aerosol and CFC problems and most of the literature opposing the traditional belief that the earth was destined to continue in a cooling cycle, with most scientific articles predicting the contrary, that is, that the earth was about to warm up. However, regarding the analysis of speeches given at party congresses, it was decided to stick to speeches held at congresses following the 2010 elections. This is because the analysis simply takes longer when examining speeches consisting of tens of pages ,and about 200 paragraphs of rhetoric and speech. Furthermore, having ascertained the levels of political preference and the priority given to climate change in terms of electoral manifestos, this exercise simply seeks to take a more in-depth and focused look at the context in which natural disasters can be placed on a timeline between the elections. Changes in the political direction of parties at elections five years later could be significantly different, and so the addition of annual conferences adds further context to the context in which natural disaster discourse can be placed. Since leading the Conservative Party to victory in the 2010 election, David Cameron has made 4 speeches at party conferences. In these it usually appears to follow “the usual format of political discourse” (Anonymous: 2013) with very little in-depth analysis permitted, having been looked at in favor of a more generalist approach; using humor, accessible language, simple examples and compelling rhetoric to keep both audiences and media happy with the quality of the sentences they are receiving. This, however, leaves little room to delve into what is realistically a complex issue. The solutions to anthropogenic climate change are not obvious, and the policy directions associated with managing the threat have clear pros and cons associated with them. Perhaps that's why Cameron mentions the environment, or green politics, only a few times in each speech. In 2010, for example, he makes two references; one on the first green investment bank and the other on environmental protection. In terms of the wider context, much of the talk focuses on the election victory the party has just enjoyed after more than a decade of Labor government. The 2013 conference speech contained the same number of mentions; 2, on the importance of green jobs and clean energy production. The year with the most references to the topic of climate change and the environment is 2011. There being 5 references in the entire speech, so still a small number, with only about 2% of the paragraphs in the speech containing references to the environment. This was the second conference at which Cameron had given a speech as Prime Minister, and so there was much less of the triumphant rhetoric of the previous year, seemingly replaced by talk of the summer's riots and how the nation needed to develop. in a strong society. As a result, much of the anecdotes and images center around a sense of togetherness. In his 2012 speech.