Climate Change Litigation and Narrative: How to Use Litigation to Tell Compelling Climate Stories
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and that it has had and will continue to have profoundly negative social, economic, and environmental consequences. The US government has not taken sufficient action to mitigate the threat of dangerous climate change. Frustrated by the lack of action in the legislative and executive branches, climate advocates have turned to the judicial branch and litigation to advance their cause. Litigation is important not only for its ability to create substantive legal change, but also for its power to generate media coverage and shape public and political discourse. There is growing recognition of the important contributions psychology can make to the study and practice of law. Research in psychology helps illuminate why the US public has had trouble engaging with the science of climate change, understanding the risks posed by climate change, and feeling motivated to take corrective action. Research also shows that how a public health issue is framed powerfully shapes the public debate and policy prescriptions for that issue. This thesis examines how climate advocates can construct their litigation messaging in light of insights from psychological and framing theories to most effectively advance the climate movement in the US. I chose to analyze three climate change litigation strategies that might present an opportunity of overcoming the public’s psychological hurdles to engaging with climate change and offer a narrative on climate change that would resonate with the public. In conducting my analysis, I found that, if used effectively, the medium of litigation offers a unique opportunity to reframe climate change and overcome the public’s cognitive hurdles to perceiving the true dangers of climate change. The structure of litigation, which requires plaintiffs to trace their injuries—including economic, social, and health-related injuries—to the actions of defendants, allows climate advocates to leverage insights from framing and psychology to make their climate change narratives as salient as possible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it