The German coal debate on Twitter: Reactions to a corporate policy process

被引:5
作者
Mueller-Hansen, Finn [1 ,2 ]
Lee, Yuan Ting [1 ,3 ]
Callaghan, Max [1 ,4 ]
Jankin, Slava [3 ]
Minx, Jan C. [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Mercator Res Inst Global Commons & Climate Change, EUREF Campus 19,Torgauer Str 12-15, D-10829 Berlin, Germany
[2] Potsdam Inst Climate Impact Res PIK, Leibniz Assoc, POB 60 12 03, D-14412 Potsdam, Germany
[3] Hertie Sch, Data Sci Lab, Friedrichstr 180, D-10117 Berlin, Germany
[4] Univ Leeds, Priestley Int Ctr Climate, Sch Earth & Environm, Leeds LS2 9JT, W Yorkshire, England
关键词
Coal phase-out; Social media; Twitter; Public opinion; Polarization; SENTIMENT; FUTURE; AGENDA;
D O I
10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113178
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Phasing out coal is a prerequisite to achieving the Paris climate mitigation targets. In 2018, the German government established a multi-stakeholder commission with the mandate to negotiate a plan for the national coal phase-out, fueling a continued public debate over the future of coal. This study analyzes the German coal debate on Twitter before, during, and after the session of the so-called Coal Commission, over a period of three years. In particular, we investigate whether and how the work of the commission translated into shared perceptions and sentiments in the public debate on Twitter. We find that the sentiment of the German coal debate on Twitter becomes increasingly negative over time. In addition, the sentiment becomes more polarized over time due to an increase in the use of more negative and positive language. The analysis of retweet networks shows no increase in interactions between communities over time. These findings suggest that the Coal Commission did not further consensus in the coal debate on Twitter. While the debate on social media only represents a section of the national debate, it provides insights for policy-makers to evaluate the interaction of multi-stakeholder commissions and public debates.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 104 条
  • [1] Sentiment and position-taking analysis of parliamentary debates: a systematic literature review
    Abercrombie, Gavin
    Batista-Navarro, Riza
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE, 2020, 3 (01): : 245 - 270
  • [2] Agora Energiewende and Aurora Energy Research,, 2019, The German Coal Commission. A Roadmap for a Just Transition from Coal to Renewables
  • [3] Public health impact of coal-fired power plants: a critical systematic review of the epidemiological literature
    Amster, Eric
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH, 2021, 31 (05) : 558 - 580
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2006, P 5 INT C LANG RES E
  • [5] Anuta D., 2017, CoRR, P1
  • [6] Appunn K, 2019, CLEAN ENERGY WIRE
  • [7] Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen e.V, 2019, STROM NACH EN STROMM
  • [8] Who Leads? Who Follows? Measuring Issue Attention and Agenda Setting by Legislators and the Mass Public Using Social Media Data
    Barbera, Pablo
    Casas, Andreu
    Nagler, Jonathan
    Egan, Patrick J.
    Bonneau, Richard
    Jost, John T.
    Tucker, Joshua A.
    [J]. AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2019, 113 (04) : 883 - 901
  • [9] Understanding the Political Representativeness of Twitter Users
    Barbera, Pablo
    Rivero, Gonzalo
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE COMPUTER REVIEW, 2015, 33 (06) : 712 - 729
  • [10] Weather impacts expressed sentiment
    Baylis, Patrick
    Obradovich, Nick
    Kryvasheyeu, Yury
    Chen, Haohui
    Coviello, Lorenzo
    Moro, Esteban
    Cebrian, Manuel
    Fowler, James H.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (04):