Content uploaded by Ruth E. Mckie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ruth E. Mckie on Jul 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Climate Change Counter Movement Neutralization
Techniques: A Typology to Examine the Climate Change
Counter Movement*
Ruth E. McKie , De Montfort University
The Climate Change Counter Movement has been a topic of interest for social sci-
entists and environmentalists for the past 25 years (Dunlap and McCright, 2015). This
research uses the sociology of crime and deviance to analyze the numerous arguments
used by climate change counter movement organizations. Content analysis of 805 state-
ments made by climate change counter movement organizations reveals that the theory
Techniques of Neutralization (Sykes and Matza, American Sociological Review 22
(6):664, 1957) can help us better understand the arguments adopted by these organiza-
tions. Taking two observations from two time points, the author examine not only the
composition of the messaging adopted by Climate Change Counter Movement (CCCM)
organization, but how these messages have changed over time. In all, there were 1,435
examples of CCCM neutralization techniques adopted by CCCM organizations across
these two points in time. This examination of the movement provides valuable insight
into the CCCM and the subsequent environmental harm that is partly facilitated by their
actions.
Introduction
Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing the world
(Pachauri et al. 2014). Industrial and technological developments have
increased the amount of carbon dioxide (CO
2
) and other greenhouse gases
(GHGs) creating what scientists have documented as a warming of the Earth’s
atmosphere (e.g., Mann et al. 2017). The adverse effects of climate change will
likely cause mass victimization of varying forms (Popovski and Mundy 2012),
including public health effects such as heat-related illnesses, waterborne and
foodborne diseases (Patz et al. 2000), to species decline or extinction (Thomas
et al. 2004).
Despite the scientific consensus on climate change and its impacts, an
organized group of actors have campaigned, distorted, and minimized the
impacts of climate change criticizing domestic and international policy
approaches to address the adverse effects of climate change. This group of
actors is more commonly referred to as the Climate Change Counter Movement
(CCCM) (Boussalis and Coan 2016; Brulle 2014; Dunlap and McCright 2015;
Sociological Inquiry, Vol. xx, No. x, 2018, 1–29
©2018 Alpha Kappa Delta: The International Sociology Honor Society
DOI: 10.1111/soin.12246
Farrell 2016). The CCCM is made up of fossil fuel industries, conservative
foundations, think tanks, front groups, and AstroTurf organizations (Dunlap
and McCright 2010). Directly and indirectly, these organizations oppose pro-
posed and existing mitigation strategies using power and influence in public
policymaking. For the purposes of this research, CCCM organizations are those
categorized as non-profit and non-governmental organizations (NGO). Argu-
ably, these organizations play an influential role in negotiating public policy
and influencing public opinion on behalf of fossil fuel and corporate actors
(Levy and Egan 2003).
Researchers have proposed several reasons why the CCCM emerged (see
Dunlap and McCright, 2015 for a review). The overarching conclusion is that
the movement attempts to protect the accumulation of capital from production
processes reliant on fossil fuels (Dunlap and McCright 2015). Simply put, the
destruction of nature is inherent in capitalistic production (and consumption)
(see Lynch et al. 2013 as related to the Treadmill of crime) and climate action
will compromise the ability to sustain and increase the accumulation of capital
(Levy and Egan 2003). These organizations then operate to protect what McKie
(2018) argues is a fossil fuel-based global capitalist economy; that is, CCCM
organizations operate as a network attempting to protect a fossil fuel-based eco-
nomic system challenged by the rise of environmentalism and environmental
policy. This is because the economic system continues the intensification of
carbon-intensive production and consumption practices that greatly contribute
to climate change (Foster 2011).
Social scientists have provided vital insights into the diverse arguments
adopted by the CCCM (see Boussalis and Coan 2016; Farrell 2016). Nonethe-
less, formulating a set of categories through a deviance lens provides a new
perspective. This study proposes Sykes and Matza’s (1957) Techniques of Neu-
tralization offers one-way to categorize these arguments. To the author’s
knowledge, no one has yet empirically applied these techniques to examine the
arguments made by CCCM organizations despite their relatively non-normative
stance on climate change.
To fill this lacuna in the literature, the author propose Sykes and Matza’s
approach provides a foundation to answer the first research question: Can the
arguments adopted by CCCM organizations be rebranded as CCCM neutral-
ization techniques? This is because the theory offers a theoretical perspective
that brings the organizations of interest into the lens of sociology of crime
and deviance. More specifically, proposing that using techniques of neutraliza-
tion to frame a debate on climate change to protect the interests of corporate
and vested interest actors inadvertently contributes to less or inaction on cli-
mate change and associated environmental harm (see also Kramer 2013). The
author then answer the second research question: Can these CCCM
2 RUTH E. MCKIE
neutralization techniques be used to monitor change over time in organiza-
tional messaging? the author take two points of time to see whether this theo-
retical framework can help monitor change over time observing whether
organization adopt the same arguments or if they change, and speculate why
these changes may have occurred. Change in CCCM organizational messaging
over time has been the focus of both Boussalis and Coan’s (2016) and Farrell
(2016) quantitative text mining projects, and the author make some additions
to this literature by asking whether this theoretical framework is useful for
monitoring change in CCCM organizational messages.
To answer these research questions, the author first examine neutralization
theory to justify its application. Second, to support the application of these tech-
niques, the author employ a content analysis of 805 statements made by CCCM
organizations between the years from 1988 to 2016 to determine potential reasons
as to why CCCM neutralization techniques are adopted. The author then explore
how these techniques change across two points in time to answer the second
research question. Finally, the author suggest a brief narrative strategy that could
be used by the public, NGOs, and policymakers to minimize and counter the
implications of CCCM neutralization techniques used by CCCM organizations.
Theoretical Framework
Sykes and Matza (1957) applied neutralization theory to the study of juve-
nile delinquency. Using an individual unit of analysis, they asked the question
“why do men violate the laws in which they believe?”(1957:666). According
to Sykes and Matza:
Much delinquency is based on what is essentially an unrecognized extension of defenses to
crimes, in the form of justifications for deviance that are seen as valid by the delinquent but
not by the legal system or society at large.
In other words, a deviant recognizes wider societal norms and use neutraliza-
tion techniques to avoid moral culpability when they violate these norms.
This contrasts with most other theories of deviance that propose a delinquent
follows or believes in an alternative set of values that differ from wider soci-
ety (i.e., subcultural theories such as Cohen 1955). The arguments used by a
deviant are commonly described as rationalizations used after an act have
been committed to protect the individual from both self-blame and the blame
from others. However, Sykes and Matza proposed these could also be justifi-
cations used by deviants proceeding deviancy and “make deviant behavior
possible”(1957:667).
Sykes and Matza identified five techniques of neutralization, although
researchers have expanded on the number of techniques over time (for a review
see Maruna and Copes 2005). The five original techniques are listed below:
CLIMATE CHANGE NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES 3
1Denial of Responsibility: the deviant lacks or does not take full responsi-
bility because there were other mitigating factors allowing a deviant
action to take place.
2Denial of Injury: the delinquent claims they are only partially responsi-
ble, and/or the injury is in fact not as bad as the victim may claim. An
additional caveat to this technique comes from the work of Thompson
and Harred (1992) that add the deviant may claim their act/actions are
beneficial.
3Denial of Victim: the deviant believes there is, in fact, no victim or that
the victim is in some way deserving.
4Condemnation of the Condemner: the deviant argues that the condemner
should be condemned for their behavior.
5Appeal to Higher Loyalties: the deviant contending there is a group of
people or something that requires the deviant act to be committed even
though it is a violation of a social norm.
While the theory suffers from methodological weaknesses in particular
(see Fritsche 2005 for a review), it continues to be widely applied in the field
of criminology and other disciplines (e.g., Maruna and Copes 2005; Suchita,
Wasewar, and Agnihotri 2017; Van Baak et al. 2017). Importantly, some have
applied the theory to examine harmful behavior that may not be defined under
traditional definitions of law. More specifically, its application to the study of
social harms (Hillyard and Tombs 2004), which proposes criminal law fails to
capture other forms of harm (see also Pearce and Tombs 2007). For instance,
Lynch, Nalla, and Miller (1989) observe the media response to the Bhopal dis-
aster in India. One of their findings from their content analysis revealed that
both across India and the United States, media distributed by Business periodi-
cal focused outlets were more likely to overlook the death and tragedy caused
by the Bhopal disaster. Additionally, they observed that the benefits of environ-
mental hazards and potential harms associated with industrial production
appeared to be a focus, particularly within the US sample, overlooking the
harmful human costs. Similarly, Schindeler and Ransley (2015) discuss how
respondents in Australian court cases and tribunals regarding justifications for
failing to deliver safe work environments adopted neutralization techniques.
Consequently, such neutralization techniques—through a regulatory legal
framework—were able to reduce and in some cases normalize the harmful
impacts of such corporate neglect.
Whyte (2016) provides an insightful use of neutralization theory to under-
stand how corporate actors in the automobile industry minimize industry
wrongdoings. He proposes industry actors use neutralization techniques to
shape a conversation or debate about behavior that may not be criminal or
4 RUTH E. MCKIE
deviant in a traditional sense, yet still cause harm by, for example, health and
safety breaches, and/or violating pollution levels. Similarly, Meesters and Beha-
gel (2017) find mining project managers employ a neutralization discourse in
Social License to Operate documents. They adopt techniques of neutralization
to minimize the associated harm of extractive industries on both nature and
society. Likewise, Fooks et al. (2013) employ neutralization techniques to
examine British American Tobacco corporate social responsibility reports. In
doing so, they summarize how the company employs techniques to shape per-
ceptions, attitudes, and criticisms about unethical company behavior, or the
minimization of the harmful effects of this industry.
This application of neutralization theory to examine behaviors not classi-
fied as deviant or criminal under conventional law, and operationalized to illus-
trate a debate and framing strategy of an issue that may not be criminal or
deviant yet harmful, suggests there is reason to believe it may apply to the
behavior of CCCM organizations. This is because, climate change and its
implications contribute to a discourse that could be adopted by the public and
politicians that help protect, for example, extractive industries that harm nature
and the society. In other words, because, “indifference rather than intent may
well be the greater cause of avoidable human suffering”(Box 1983:19), creat-
ing a debate or indifference toward climate change and its impacts. In doing
so, it may fail to prevent the subsequent harm caused by the negative relation-
ship between the fossil fuel-based economy and climate change.
To further justify why Sykes and Matza’s theoretical framework can be
applied to the study of CCCM organizations, the author highlight approaches
from the sociology of crime and deviance that have already been used to
explore climate change (Agnew 2012; Lynch and Stretesky 2010). Agnew
(2012), for instance, outlines potential criminogenic consequences of climate
change, including increased state conflicts, conflicts over natural resources, and
increased violence. He applies criminological theories including strain (Merton
1938) and social disorganization theory (Shaw and McKay 1942), concluding
climate change may create beliefs, values, and a social environment that
increase opportunities for criminal behaviors.
Adopting a social harms approach, others have turned their attention to
corporations and state actors driving climate change, suggesting this behavior
be labeled as criminal and/or deviant (Kramer 2013; Lynch, Burns, and Stre-
tesky 2010). For example, Kramer (2013) adopted a state-corporate crime per-
spective arguing the lack of US legislation to address climate change is one
outcome of relationships between, for example, carbon-intensifying corpora-
tions, related industries, political organizations, think tanks, and foundations.
Kramer’s critical “deviancy”perspective on corporate and [political] states
role in failing to seriously address climate change, aligns with ideas emerging
CLIMATE CHANGE NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES 5
in the Treadmill of Crime literature (e.g., Stretesky, Long, and Lynch 2014).
Stretesky, Long, and Lynch (2014) draw on Schnaiberg’s (1980) concept of
treadmill of production proposing links exist between environmental disorgani-
zation, political economy, and a harms-based approach within criminology.
They contend that capitalism—as the world’s dominant economic system—
drives the constant expansion of production to accumulate profit. Consequently,
this creates a form of environmental disorganization, whereby in the constant
pursuit of capital, there is a subsequent disorganization of the ecosystem or
environmental harm. CCCM may well be an integral group of organizations
used to defend this trend and prevent any disruption to the treadmill. Operating
alongside and in conjunction with powerful “capitalist”actors, such as fossil
fuel industries (see also Brulle 2014), through this perspective there is scope to
further posit links between CCCM organizations and environmental harm.
Aligned with the views of Kramer (2013) and others, the author propose
that CCCM organizations use CCCM neutralization techniques to minimize the
problems and challenges associated with climate change, leading to further envi-
ronmental harm. Thus, CCCM organizations operate to frame the debate on cli-
mate change science and policy as “up for debate”rather than aligned with the
scientific consensus. The purpose of which is to resist challenges to a fossil fuel-
based economic system that requires the constant accumulation of capital from
natural resources (e.g., McCright and Dunlap, 2011). This is because human-
caused climate change can be thought of as a systematic function of economic
growth and industrial development under capitalism (Foster, Brett, and Richard
2010; Stretesky, Long, and Lynch 2013) and these industries are directly and
indirectly connected with CCCM organizations (e.g., Brulle 2014).
Having identified how and why there is reason to believe the CCCM can
be examined via a crime and deviance lens, the same principles of sociological
investigation can be applied to CCCM organizations by forging a new interpre-
tation of these oppositional arguments using neutralization theory.
Method
Before applying this theoretical framework to the messages adopted by
CCCM organization, the first step in the process was to identify the CCCM
organizational population. The author based the initial sample of CCCM orga-
nizations on an aggregated list of organizations based on previous l CCCM lit-
erature (see Appendix A). The author then examined each organization’s Web
site to identify and inspect every other organization listed as a friend or con-
nection on their Web site. To determine whether those connected organization
could be classified as a CCCM organization, each had to satisfy characteristics
denominated from a relational defined boundary (Butts, 2008). The author
developed the relational defined boundary using previous literature on the
6 RUTH E. MCKIE
CCCM (see McKie 2018 for further information on this relational defined
boundary).
The final population consisted of 465 CCCM organizations located across
53 countries operating between the between the years 1950 and 2016. Not sur-
prisingly, many of these organizations (N=330) are from the United States.
Nonetheless, it is clear that CCCM organizations operate in other countries
including parts of Europe, Latin America, and Australasia. Thus, while there
were fewer CCCM organizations in other countries, the CCCM is not simply a
US phenomenon (more information on these organizations and locations is
available on request).
Following identification, the author undertook a content analysis of 805
CCCM organizational documents. The author operationalized a pre-defined
coding scheme incorporating a set of neutralization techniques specific to the
CCCM (see McKie 2018 for further information on the development of these
techniques). Table 1 presents the transformed techniques of neutralization,
renamed CCCM neutralization techniques.To account for the emergence of
any techniques that were not pre-defined, the author added the category of
“other”to the coding scheme. The employment or non-employment of a tech-
nique of became a dummy variable; coded “1”an organization adopts the tech-
niques, and “0”an organization does not adopt the technique.
The author collected data from two points in time to see whether there
were significant differences in neutralization techniques across the two points.
To monitor these changes over time, the author used data taken from the orga-
nizations’point of emergence based on available data as “time 1”(between
1957 and 2014) and their most recent point in time (i.e., 2015 or their last year
of operation) as “time 2.”The author treat the techniques as mutually exclu-
sive (independent), and Pearson’s chi-square results are used to establish
whether there are associations between techniques changing over time where
significance is measured at the p<.05 level.
The author conducted two intercoder reliability tests to check the reliability
and validity of the coding scheme. Krippendorf’s alpha (KALPHA) is a useful
measure of intercoder reliability measured as the percentage agreement between
two coders where values of .00 (no agreement) to 1.00 (perfect agreement)
(Lombard, Snyder-Duch, and Bracken 2002). The first set of independent
coders were myself and an academic from the same institution. Coders ana-
lyzed a sample of ten position statements, and KALPHA equaled 67.9 percent.
This was on the lower end of what can produce reliable results. Consequently,
the author conducted a second test using ten coders from a criminology under-
graduate level class studying techniques of neutralization as part of a learning
exercise. KALPHA equaled 82.8 percent. The mean of both scores was 75.35
CLIMATE CHANGE NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES 7
Table 1
Climate Change Counter Movement Neutralization Techniques
Name Original definition
Climate change
definition
Denial of
Responsibility
(DOR)
Denial of responsibility is used
to contend that the deviant or
criminal act is accidental and/
or fell victim to their social
environment unable to control
their actions
Climate change is
happening, but humans
are not the cause.
Denial of Injury
(DOI1 and
DOI2)
Denial of harm or injury asserts
(1) an act will not injure or
significantly injure someone or
something; and/or (2) there are
likely positive impacts from
this behavior
(1) There is no significant
harm caused by human
action, and (2) there may
even be some benefits
Denial of Victim
(DOV1 and
DOV2)
Denial of Victim on one hand
juxtaposes victim and offender
as the deviant becomes the
condemner and law enforcer
(1) There are no climate
change victims. (2) If
climate change victims
do exist, they deserve to
be victimized.
Condemnation of
the Condemner
(COC)
Condemnation of the
condemner shifts negative or
criticisms of a deviant those
condemning that person’s
actions, thereby rejecting the
higher status of the
condemners.
Climate change research
is misrepresented by
scientists, and
manipulated by media,
politicians, and
environmentalists.
Appeal to Higher
Loyalties
(AHL)
Appeal to Higher Loyalties
imitates a sacrifice to satisfy
the requirements of an
intimate social group
Economic progress and
development are more
important than
preventing climate
change.
Other Any argument that
appears to be
oppositional to climate
change but not one of
the above
8 RUTH E. MCKIE
percent, suggesting sufficient reliability in the coding and the author could pro-
ceed with confidence that findings would be reliable.
Findings & Analysis
The author identified 1,435 CCCM techniques in total across the two
points in time. The average number of techniques used by an organization at
both points in time was two. Additionally, there was a consistent pattern where
an organization will include one or two techniques and far fewer organizations
using three or more techniques at time 1 and time 2 (see Appendix B).
Table 2 provides descriptive statistics and an example of each technique at
both time points. The results tell us that COC is the most commonly used tech-
nique across both points in time (N=517) with 64 percent of organizations
adopting the technique at time 1 increasing to 64.4 percent at time 2. AHL fol-
lows with 383 accounts in total with 48.3 percent of organizations adopting it
at time 1, decreasing to 32.1 percent at time 2. The other techniques were less
popular. There were 207 examples of the technique and the percentage of orga-
nizations using this technique increased from 18.5 percent to 25 percent over
time. The author found 178 examples of DOI1, and the percentage of organiza-
tion adopting the technique decreased from 19.7 percent to 17.2 percent. There
were fewer accounts of DOI2 (N=103) compared to other techniques at both
points in time, but the percentage of organizations adopting the argument did
increase from 12.5 percent to 13 percent. The technique used least in this data
was DOV1, adopted by 49 organizations in total, and decreased from 8.2 per-
cent to 2.1 percent over time.
Upon analysis of the statements, the data revealed another technique simi-
lar to the technique of neutralization justification by comparison (JBC) (Crom-
well and Thurman 2003) (N=31). JBC may be used to claim that climate
change should be a lesser priority than other domestic or international policy
issues. Thus, the technique is employed to compare and contrast climate action
with other policies.
The technique DOV2 based on the notion that the victim was in some way
deserving (Sykes and Matza 1957) did not appear in the data. There may be two
reasons for this. First, it may be that this technique does not fit to the subject area
of CCCM arguments. Second, it may be a true reflection of a potential argument
used by CCCM organization because juxtaposing victim and offender is not a
suitable argument to stimulate resistance to climate action.
A closer examination of each technique provides greater insight into the
construction of denial and how techniques of neutralization can be used to label
arguments used by CCCM organizations. In doing so, the author answer the
first research question: Can the arguments adopted by CCCM organizations be
rebranded as CCCM neutralization techniques?
CLIMATE CHANGE NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES 9
Table 2
Frequency and Example of Each Climate Change Counter Movement
Neutralization Technique
Technique of
Neutralization
Freq.
Time 1
Freq.
Time 2 Total Example
DOR 88 119 207 “Changes in global temperatures are
natural. There is no proof that
temperature is affected by anything
that man has done”(American Policy
Center, 1998).
DOI1 94 83 177 “Man’s contribution to atmospheric
CO
2
is small and dwarfed by natural
emissions...”(Carbon Sense
Coalition, 2007)
DOI2 49 54 103 “CO
2
does not control the climate. It is
an essential plant food and more CO
2
will produce more plant growth and a
greener globe”(Clexit, 2015).
DOV1 39 10 49 “Computer models forecast rapidly
rising global temperatures, but data
from weather satellites and balloon
instruments show no warming
whatsoever”(Science and
Environmental Policy Project, 1998).
DOV2 0 0 0 –
COC 251 266 517 “Our main purpose is to bring reason,
integrity and balance to a debate that
has become seriously unbalanced,
irrationally alarmist, and all too often
depressingly intolerant”(Global
Warming Policy Foundation, 2009).
AHL 230 153 383 “The Kyoto Protocol, by focusing on
attempts to curtail CO
2
at great cost,
will not stop or reverse climate
change. It would be better to spend
our money on fighting true pollution
of atmosphere and surface waters, and
on feeding starving children”(Friends
of Science, 1998).
10 RUTH E. MCKIE
The first technique of interest DOR denies the human impacts on climate
change. Organizations adopting the technique acknowledge climate change is
occurring, but argue it is the result of other “natural”factors. For instance, in
2006, the US-based Goldwater Institute stated, “There is no doubt that CO
2
is a
greenhouse gas that when elevated will act to warm the Earth. However, its levels
have fluctuated enormously over the history of the Earth.”Likewise, in 2007, the
Australian-based think tank Carbon Sense Coalition adopted DOR stating, “man
does not control these global events”(2007: np). This new label is consistent with
previous research such as McCright and Dunlap (2000) that argue CCCM organi-
zations adopt these forms of pseudo-science to contradict the scientific consensus.
DOI was operationalized as two separate codes: (1) DOI1, there is no sig-
nificant harm caused by human actions, and (2) DOI2, there may be some ben-
efits to rising CO
2
emissions. Both techniques indicate an organization accepts
that humans are at least partially responsible for climate change, and in the case
of DOI2, these changes have positive impacts. For instance, in 2002, Canadian
CCCM organization Friends of Science used DOI1, “So-called greenhouse
gases constitute about 3 percent of the atmosphere. Of this 3 percent, CO
2
is a
minute quantity; water vapor (clouds etc.) amounts to 97 percent.”Humans
then bare little responsibility for climate change. The Cornwall Alliance in the
document An Open Letter to the Signers of “Climate Change: An Evangelical
Call to Action”and Others Concerned about Global Warming stated, “Natural
causes may account for a large part, perhaps the majority, of the global warm-
ing in both the last thirty and the last one hundred fifty years... Human emis-
sions of CO
2
and other greenhouse gases are probably a minor and possibly an
Table 2
(continued)
Technique of
Neutralization
Freq.
Time 1
Freq.
Time 2 Total Example
JBC 0 31 31 “...China emits more CO
2
in one month
(more than 800 million tonnes) than
the maximum amount Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal
will reduce in one year (approximately
550 million tonnes)”(American
Coalition for Clean Energy, 2015).
CLIMATE CHANGE NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES 11
insignificant contributor to its causes”(2000:2). DOI1 then implies that a
CCCM organization understands human emissions play a role in climate
change, but to neutralize and create resistance to climate action they suggest
humans only play a minor role or the injury is not worthy of discussion.
Consistent with previous research (e.g., Dunlap and Jacques, 2013), the
technique DOI2 positively frames the impacts of climate change. For example,
in 2009, the New Zealand-based branch of Climate Realists contended,
“...Increasing the amount of CO
2
in the atmosphere increases plant growth
rates...”(2009: np). In 1998, the US-based American Policy Center positively
frames the impacts of a naturally evolving climate stating, “...The truth is,
someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at the North Pole –
and it will be perfectly natural...”(American Policy Center, 1998: np). Simi-
larly, the Ethan Allen Institute contended, “...if global warming does occur, it
is likely to be beneficial to crops and animal life...”(1998: np).
DOV1 supposes that there are no victims of climate change. While the
number of organizations using this technique is significantly lower than other
techniques, it is still used by CCCM organizations. For example, the Science
and Environmental Policy Project contended, “Computer models forecast
rapidly rising global temperatures and data from weather satellites and balloon
instruments show no warming whatsoever”(1998: np). Similarly, Climate
Depot, an offset of the CCCM organization Committee for a Constructive
Tomorrow, stated that, “there has not been global warming for over 18 years.”
These findings illustrate that the techniques DOR, DOI1 & 2, and DOV1
mimic scientific arguments providing counterclaims to justify inaction on cli-
mate change. CCCM neutralization techniques are another way to label the
arguments concurrent with previous research on the CCCM. For example, these
four techniques directly adopt the term “denial”to manipulate existing scientific
findings and deny the reality of science or general environmental consensus
(e.g., McCright and Dunlap 2000; Washington and Cook 2011) in the same
way that a deviant adopts justifications in direct contrast to general social
norms allowing deviance to take place.
In contrast to the application of “science denial,”the techniques, COC,
AHL, and JBC, do not strictly fit this category. These are similar to the group
of policy-oriented arguments identified by researchers such as Boussalis and
Coan (2016) and Farrell (2016). Rather than relying on science denial, CCCM
adopt justifications concerned with domestic and international political econ-
omy. For example, the use of COC shifts attention from the “deviant”actor
(CCCM organizations) by transferring the deviant label to scientists, environ-
mentalists, and/or other policy actors attempting to address climate change. The
Bulgarian-based Institute for Market Economics,for instance, used COC stat-
ing, “...more and more frequently the movement in question (proclaiming
12 RUTH E. MCKIE
global warming) is being referred to as religious, since it is based not on facts
but on the faith of its followers...”(2007: np).
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy stated, “...radical environmental-
ism–which seeks to impose ever bigger government on society–has become the
last refuge of many of the world’s socialists... “(1992: np). Similarly, the
Ghanaian Imani: Center for Policy and Education released a statement criticiz-
ing several political actors and environmentalists; “Rather than face up to cli-
mate change with reasoned technology, we are engaging in fear mongering and
selling ourselves short in the face of limitless solutions our brains can bear”
(2007: np). Framing environmentalists as an extreme “religious group”holds
negative connotations, condemning those that follow the consensus on climate
change. This technique used to equate environmentalism and a problematic ide-
ology is consistent with the work of Antonio and Brulle (2011). The research-
ers highlighted similar opposition by CCCM organizations noting among the
American public, and in conservative media, climate change was often sighted
as a “left-wing anti-capitalist conspiracy”(2011:198). Hence, the CCCM trans-
form the image of a deviant to environmentalists, climate scientists, and policy-
makers rather than themselves because they are protecting the fossil fuel-based
global capitalist economy (see also Dunlap and McCright 2015).
Climate change counter movement organizations also operationalize the
technique AHL which emerged in two general forms. The first presents concern
for the social and economic development of domestic populations, and the sec-
ond presents concern for the social and economic development in other parts of
the world. For example, the United Kingdom-based Clexit stated, “For develop-
ing countries, the Paris Treaty would deny them the benefits of reliable low-
cost hydrocarbon energy”(2016: np). Similarly, the Kansas Independent Oil
and Gas Association stated, “because fossil fuels provide about 85 percent of
the energy used in the US economy, any program that constrains CO
2
emis-
sions will effectively constrain US energy use and result in higher prices and
less economic output”(2009:2). CCCM organizations then adopt arguments
that accept climate change may be real and needs addressing; however, these
actions themselves will cause harm to social and economic development.
Another technique identified in the data was JBC. This technique has
appeared in many crime and deviance studies (e.g., Cromwell and Thurman
2003) and is operationalized in this case like a bargaining tool in climate
change negotiations both by cross-country and cross-policy action. For exam-
ple, in 2016, an article on the US CCCM organization American Coalition
Clean Coal Energy Web site contended, “...China emits more CO
2
in one
month...than the maximum amount Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
proposal will reduce in one year...”(np). This statement incorporates JBC by
contrasting the EPA’s and Chinese climate policy to justify lesser action on
CLIMATE CHANGE NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES 13
climate change in the United States. Similarly, the Hudson Institute employed
the technique making several comparisons between the United States and other
countries climate action plan including China; “In fact, the Beijing deal would
see China begin to cut its carbon emissions only after the United States made
dramatic cuts to its own emissions first”(2014: np).
JBC along with the techniques COC and AHL are in a sense a form of
strategic skepticism; that is, rather than opposition messaging focused on the
science of climate change, CCCM organizations adopt arguments that question
the legitimacy of policy and certain mechanisms to address climate change by
offering alternatives that do not address the wider political and economic fac-
tors detrimental to environmental harm.
Second research question asked as follows: Could these techniques of neu-
tralization help us monitor the arguments used by CCCM organizations over
time? As highlighted in Table 2, there are some changes over time where 58.8
percent organizations did adopt different neutralization techniques. Table 3 pro-
vides only significant cross-tabulation results revealing more information on
how this framework can be used to monitor how these arguments changed over
time. It reports the frequency and percentage of cross-tabulations for each tech-
nique used at time 2 and whether it is influenced by the use or non-use of the
same technique at time 1.
The results in Table 3 present all significant results for monitoring change
in organizational messaging. All significant results show that employing a tech-
nique is often a precursor for employing the same technique in future
(p<.05); that is, the significant chi-square results show that, with some confi-
dence, employing the technique at one point time is related to employing the
same technique at another time. To be clear, CCCM organizations that use a
denial tactic at one point in time are likely to use the tactic.
A high percentage of organizations newly adopted COC at time 2 com-
pared to time 1 were 40.3 percent (p<.05) of organizations that did not adopt
COC at time 1 did so at time 2. A high percentage of organizations that
adopted COC at time 1 continued to do so at time 2 (78.6%, p<.05), with
only 21.4 percent of organizations choosing not to adopt the technique at time
2. This differs, for example, to AHL, where over half of the organizations
adopting AHL at time 1 did not use the technique at time 2 (54.4%, p<.05),
and only a small percentage of organizations did add AHL to their denial tac-
tics (26.1%, p<.05).
The results on science-based techniques (DOR, DOI1, DOI2, DOV1) are
diverse. For example, there was a 24 percent increase in the number of organi-
zations adopting DOR at time 2 showing a small increase in the percentage of
organizations choosing to add DOR to their denial tactics. Thus, despite the
growing scientific consensus on climate change, organizations did continue to
14 RUTH E. MCKIE
Table 3
Cross-Tabulation Results On Techniques of Neutralization Across Two Points In Time
Denial of Responsibility Time 1 Denial of Victim 1 Time 1
No Yes Total No Yes Total
Denial of
Responsibility
Freq.
(%)
No 206
(76.0%)
44
(51.2%)
250
(70.0%)
Denial of
Victim
1 Time 2
Freq.
(%)
No 314
(98.4%)
35
(92.1%)
349 (97.8%)
Time 2 Freq.
(%)
Yes 65
(24.0%)
42
(48.8%)
107
(30.0%)
Freq.
(%)
Yes 5 (1.6%) 3 (7.9%) 8 (2.2%)
Total 271 88 357 Total 319 38 357
Chi-Square
Tests
19.210* Chi-Square
Tests
6.205*
Denial of Injury 1 Time 1 Condemnation of the Condemner Time 1
No Yes Total No Yes Total
Denial
of Injury
1 Time 2
Freq.
(%)
No 225
(82.7%)
53
(62.4%)
278
(77.9%)
Condemnation
of the
Condemner
Time 2
Freq.
(%)
No 71
(59.7%)
51
(21.4%)
122
(34.2%)
Freq.
(%)
Yes 47
(17.3%)
32
(37.6%)
79 (22.1%) Freq.
(%)
Yes 48
(40.3%)
187
(78.6%)
235
(65.8%)
CLIMATE CHANGE NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES 15
Table 3
(continued)
Denial of Injury 1 Time 1 Condemnation of the Condemner Time 1
No Yes Total No Yes Total
Total 272 85 357 Total 119 238 357
Chi-Square
Tests
15.591* Chi-Square
Tests
51.558*
Denial of Injury 2 Time 1 Appeal to Higher Loyalties Time 1
No Yes Total No Yes
Denial
of Injury
2 Time 2
Freq.
(%)
No 287
(92.3%)
19
(42.2%)
306 (86.0%) Appeal
to Higher
Loyalties
Time 2
Freq.
(%)
No 105
(73.9%)
117
(54.4%)
222 (62.2%)
Freq.
(%)
Yes 24
(7.7%)
26
(57.8%)
50 (14.0%) Freq.
(%)
Yes 37
(26.1%)
98
(45.6%)
135 (37.8%)
Total 311 45 357 Total 142 215 357
Chi-
Square
Tests
81.607* Chi-Square
Tests
13.864*
Notes:*p<.05; Degrees of Freedom (df) =1.
16 RUTH E. MCKIE
adopt this arguably pseudo-scientific technique. 57.8 percent (p<.05) of orga-
nizations continued to use the science technique DOI2 again, despite the over-
whelming scientific agreement.
The results in both Tables 2 and 3 provide mixed evidence supporting pre-
vious studies on the messages used by CCCM organizations over time. First,
the finding regarding COC bares similarities with McCright and Dunlap’s
(2010) analysis of US CCCM organizations. The researchers observed that
prior to 1997, these organizations would more likely adopt positions that were
“obfuscating, misrepresenting, manipulating a suppressing research results”(p.
111). Since 1997 and after the Kyoto Protocol, additional counterclaims
evolved, where CCCM organizations employed messages that became “intimi-
dating or threatening [towards] individual scientists”(p. 114). This might
explain why COC did slightly increase at time 2 by .4 percent and 40.3 percent
of organizations introduced the technique at time 2. Likewise, these results also
bare some similarities with the work of Farrell (2016). He found that over time,
CCCM organizations incorporated more policy-oriented or strategic forms of
messaging than science-based arguments and these results for the technique
COC—although not for AHL—do bare this similarity.
These results do show an increase in the number of certain science-based
neutralization techniques corresponding with the findings of Boussalis and
Coan’s (2016) longitudinal analysis of 19 CCCM organization messages
between the years 1998 and 2013. Their analysis revealed a slight increase in
the number of science-based arguments adopted by CCCM organizations lead-
ing to the conclusion that “the era of science denial is not over”(2016:89).
While there are no defined points at time 1 or 2 in this research, the fact that
the number of organizations adopting DOR and DOI2 increased does suggest
like Boussalis and Coan’s that science-based arguments are still used by
CCCM organizations despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate
change. It is also reasonable to assume that the increase in certain science-
based techniques may well be in direct response to the prevailing evidence of
the climate change consensus (Lewandowsky, Ecker, and Cook 2017).
Lastly, the author conducted simple bivariate correlation results on the
techniques of neutralization at time 2 to see whether there were any significant
relationships when techniques are used together (see Appendix C); that is, the
results indicate that techniques are not treated as mutually exclusive, with
bivariate correlations providing information on any significant relationships
between certain techniques of neutralization. The author took time 2 because
all the data were taken from 1 year (2015).
There are two points to note. One, DOR is positively and significantly cor-
related with all techniques except AHL and JBC. This suggests it is not simply
science-oriented techniques, which are significantly correlated, rather there are
CLIMATE CHANGE NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES 17
significant correlations between both types of arguments. Similarly, DOI2 was
also significantly and positively related to COC (p<.05), AHL (p<.01), and
JBC (p<.05). Thus, the positive relationship between the employment of pol-
icy-oriented and scientific techniques appears a common strategy used by the
CCCM. Again, these significant correlations between CCCM neutralization
techniques show preliminary associations that show the complex nature of how
multiple techniques are used by CCCM organizations. Moreover, organizations
will not simply adopt a strategic or scientific set of arguments. These results
align with previous research such as Boussalis and Coan (2016) that highlight
the prevalence of multifaceted arguments to construct a narrative of denial.
Discussion and Conclusion
Evidence indicates these organizations adopted one or more of the newly
constructed neutralization techniques answering research question one. Often,
these neutralization techniques were not mutually exclusive, where on average
two or more techniques were used at one point in time. One example is taken
from a statement by the US Environmental Literacy Council, the recipient of
donor funding from fossil fuel interested organizations (Brulle 2014), combined
COC and AHL arguing “Climate change also reveals how difficult it is to sepa-
rate environmental science from environmental politics. This is not simply to
say that people use science for political reasons...The consequences, however
we answer that question, might be very great”(1998: np).
The commonality of multiple techniques suggests organizations attempt to
appeal to different groups that may respond more favorably to one technique
over another. In addition, the purpose of employing multiple techniques may
be to reinforce the idea that there are several reasons to resist climate change
mitigation strategies. These findings are consistent with previous work on the
CCCM that show CCCM organizations adopt multiple arguments to convince
the public and politicians to do the same (e.g., Farrell 2016). The reason for
this application may be traced to the nature of the organized opposition in cli-
mate change denial techniques where, particularly in the United States, there
has been a historic campaign to distort the scientific consensus on climate
change. The tactic of employing multiple techniques may be a result of histori-
cal activity of the movement that culminates in a variety of arguments to frame
skepticism and an alternative perspective on climate change. The purpose of
which is so the public and/or politicians may also question climate action and
adopt a variety of arguments resulting in a lack of support for the scientific
consensus and proposed strategies.
By analyzing techniques at two points in time, the data also reveal that
organizations did make some changes to the techniques they used. The use of
some techniques such as COC increased, while others such as DOI1 declined.
18 RUTH E. MCKIE
These preliminary findings on change over time do show that neutralization
theory can be used to monitor change in organizational messages over time;
answering research question two. These changes in social movement messaging
are similar to the changing dynamics in messaging used by other social move-
ments. For example, Lim (2012) gives some brief insight into the changing
dynamics of the Egyptian uprising in 2011. He notes that the messages adopted
by the movement changed over time to improve resonance with a different
population effected by specific political, social, and economic characteristics
unique to their experiences in Egypt.
1
In a similar way, the CCCM appears to have made some changes to its
messaging. However, this particular analysis does not empirically determine
why these changes occur. Nonetheless, as discussed above previous work on
the CCCM to provide some insight into why these changes may have occurred.
For example, Boussalis and Coan (2016) draw tangible links between certain
political and economic situations and changing messages of CCCM organiza-
tion. For instance, they note questions on scientific integrity proposed by
CCCM organization emerging shortly following the Climategate era, and this is
similar to the technique COC.
2
Additionally, the author can speculate that other
political and economic factors such as the introduction of the Kyoto Protocol
in 1997, Climategate, and the 2008 economic crisis may have led to changes in
the arguments adopted by CCCM organizations. A future longitudinal analysis
using this coding scheme may provide further information on this point.
Nonetheless, these initial results indicate that the CCCM use CCCM neutraliza-
tion techniques dynamically that may be in response to wider social, political,
and/or economic factors.
Afinal point to note on changes over time is the contribution made to
understanding Sykes and Matza’s original theoretical conception; that is, Sykes
and Matza’s original techniques have not regularly been employed to under-
stand change over time rather used to understand behavior at one point in time.
Answering research question two extends the concept of neutralization theory
to illustrate that techniques may be temporal in so far as they are employed
and adapted in response to potentially political, social and economic factors.
Thus, the application of neutralization theory does not only offer a different
and unique perspective on the CCCM, but also its overall contribution to the
neutralization theory literature.
It is important to note the content analysis does not reveal the causal order
of techniques, a common criticism of research adopting neutralization theory
(Fritsche 2005); that is, the author have not established whether neutralization
techniques are adopted by CCCM organization prior to or as a reaction to, for
example, a specific policy decision such as the UNFCCC Paris Agreement.
However, by turning to previous literature on the CCCM the author can offer
CLIMATE CHANGE NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES 19
some perspective on the forces behind the manifestation of CCCM neutraliza-
tion techniques.
McCright and Dunlap (2003) commented that the CCCM emerged to neu-
tralize action to address climate change when there is political opportunity to
do so. This is because the problem of climate change has created a period of
social and political instability whereby addressing climate action will affect the
continuous accumulation of capital through production practices that have nega-
tive impacts on the environment (Foster 2011). On one hand, society has
gained significant evidence as to the severity of climate change and other envi-
ronmental problems and is developing strategies to reduce this harm. On the
other, it has provided the opportunity for an organized group of actors to
employ what the author contend are CCCM neutralization techniques to prevent
decreases in fossil fuel-based business practices (McCright and Dunlap 2003);
that is, because of the rise of environmentalism and support for the reduction
in fossil fuels, a fossil fuel-based global capitalist economy is no longer seen
as the most appropriate method for development based on the evidenced envi-
ronmental problems that it has created (Klein 2015). This manifests in a con-
flict between the consensus to address climate change and challenge the status
quo of a fossil fuel-based economy, thus creating the opportunity for this orga-
nized group of actors to alter the perceptions of the public using CCCM neu-
tralization techniques to reframe the consensus in an attempt to minimize
support for climate action.
The results of the content analysis cannot determine whether CCCM organi-
zations believe the techniques they adopt. In other words, do CCCM organiza-
tions believe the basis of these neutralization techniques, or do they accept the
evidence and consensus, operationalizing these techniques in the interests of pro-
tecting fossil fuel industry actors? Addressing this question is important because
the author proposed neutralization theory could be adopted in a harms-based
approach in criminology to establish if, in some way, CCCM organizations help
frame a denial debate that fails to address environmentally harmful behaviors, par-
ticularly the behavior of corporate actors (see also Kramer 2013). To determine
an answer to this question, the author look to previous literature on the CCCM.
Broader knowledge on the movement suggests that CCCM organizations
have known that human-caused CO
2
emissions are the main cause of climate
since as early as 1957 (Center for Environmental Law, 2016). This suggests
these organizations accept the scientific consensus but employ CCCM neutral-
ization techniques to protect the interests of fossil fuel and other corporate
actors aligned with the perspective of Kramer (2013). The already evidenced
donor funding from several fossil fuel and corporate industries to CCCM orga-
nizations (Brulle 2014) supports this, suggesting a purposeful strategy to pre-
vent climate action to protect these industry interests. In so doing, may in fact
20 RUTH E. MCKIE
inadvertently contribute to environmental harm by creating an indifference
toward climate action (see also Ard, Garcia, and Kelly 2017 on PAC donations
and environmental legislative decision making). While beyond the scope of this
paper, a further and similar analysis incorporating the linkages between corpo-
rate actors wishing to maintain constant accumulation of capital and CCCM
organizations through a deviance lens perspective would further enlighten the
research particularly in regard to the concept of the Treadmill of Crime and
ecological disorganization.
Moreover, looking closer at the techniques themselves, they suggest these
organizations may employ these techniques even though they know that doing
so fails to prevent action that could prevent ecological harm. The techniques
DOR and DOV1 argue that the science on climate change does not show
humans are the cause. The other techniques do acknowledge climate change is
real and therefore accept the scientific consensus. Consequently, there is reason
to believe that these organizations do accept the wider consensus but adopt
these arguments for vested interest groups. Thus, by simply presenting mes-
sages in the interests of corporate actors hoping to defend the status quo, may
affect policy decision making, it may reduce or prevent climate change action;
that is, CCCM inadvertently deliver preventative actions, which would other-
wise prevent harmful behaviors. This aligns with Brisman and South
(2015:454) who argue that the actions of contrarian scientists; “...contribute to
increased environmental harm and ‘‘ecological deviance.’’ In other words, if
campaigns like the Heartland Institute’s succeed... thereby preserving the sta-
tus quo (i.e., inaction on climate change)...then environmental degradation and
destruction...is likely to increase (or, at least, is not abated).”
To justify this conclusion, there is some evidence to suggest that counter
movement activity may have influenced public opinion on climate change,
potentially leading to less support and urgency to address this challenge. For
example, Carmichael and Brulle (2017) articulate the impact of elite cues and
the role of the CCCM on US public concern on climate change. They note the
association between political worldview following and support a global capital-
ist economy more strongly expressed through counter movement actors does
have a critical impact on climate change concern. Similarly, McCright
(2016:77) found that “identification with or trust in groups representing the
industrial capitalist system [i.e. CCCM organizations] increases the likelihood
of climate change skepticism.”Therefore, this evidenced impact on public per-
ceptions on climate change may as Brisman and South (2015) contend repro-
duce ideas that preserve the global capitalist economy and at a minimum fail to
abate its related environmental degradation.
One way to counter, the use of the technique DOR may be to operational-
ize arguments relating to the scientific consensus. In particular, more accessible
CLIMATE CHANGE NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES 21
language of the scientific evidence contrasting with some of the scientific argu-
ments presented by CCCM scientists, which suggest, for example, sun cycles
cause natural fluctuations in the climate. A similar action should be taken for
those organizations that adopt science-based techniques DOI1, DOI2, and
DOV1. According to O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole (2009), it is important for
those promoting climate action to not encourage “fear”; that is, “non-threaten-
ing imagery”linked to an individuals’everyday emotions appears to be more
effective and engaging than those images that spark fear or “hysteria”
(2009:369). The techniques COC, AHL, and JBC, are not denial in the tradi-
tional definition but focus upon policy-oriented issues to do with climate
change. To counter this form of strategic skepticism should highlight how poli-
cies addressing climate change are not only in line with mitigating climate
changes, but also to the benefits of human populations.
In sum, the author proposed the sociology of crime and deviance could help
us understand the arguments used by CCCM organizations that attempt to fore-
stall actions to address these harmful behaviors. Evidence suggests the arguments
adopted by CCCM organizations can be labeled as CCCM neutralization tech-
niques. This research then has provided an alternate coding scheme applicable to
CCCM messaging the author’s hope is it expands the debate on this topic of devi-
ant organizational behavior. This is important if we are to prevent further environ-
mentally harmful behavior’s by providing further insight into these oppositional
arguments adopted by CCCM organizations that play a vital role in environmen-
tal policymaking, influencing public and political attitudes on climate change
(McCright, 2008).
ENDNOTES
*Please direct correspondence to Ruth E. McKie, De Montfort University, 00.02 Hawthorn
Building, The Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK; e-mail: ruth.mckie@dmu.ac.uk
1
Based on preliminary structured interviews with members of five different CCCM organiza-
tions in 2014 and 2015, the author found that Sykes and Matza’s techniques could be adapted and
become CCCM neutralization techniques; that is, CCCM organizations use these techniques to (1)
challenge the scientific evidence on climate change and (2) reduce or prevent the implementation of
strategies to adapt to and mitigate climate changes. The purpose of employing CCCM neutralization
techniques is to persuade public and politicians to resist arguments for climate mitigation, which
they themselves may later adopt.
2
Climategate refers to the illegal release of documents from the Climate Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia, one of the main research institutes contributing to the IPCC (Grundmann,
2013). Following the release of these documents, scientists were and continue to be accused of cor-
ruption. The CCCM allege they had purposefully ignored the medieval warming period that would
reportedly contradict some evidence supporting human-caused climate change (Stoutenborough,
Liu, and Vedlitz 2014).
22 RUTH E. MCKIE
REFERENCES
Agnew, Robert. 2012. “It’s The End of the World as we Know it: The Advance of Climate Change
from a Criminological Perspective.”Pp 13–25 in Climate Change from a Criminological
Perspective, edited by Rob White. New York: Springer.
American Policy Center. 1998. “There is no Global Warming.”Retrieved March 24, 2015. https://
web.archive.org/web/19981205094229/http://www.americanpolicy.org:80/plate.main/Strike
Forliberty/NoGlobWarm.html.
Antonio, Robert J. and Robert J. Brulle. 2011. “The Unbearable Lightness of Politics: Climate
Change Denial and Political Polarization.”The Sociological Quarterly 52(2):195–202.
Ard, Kerry, Nick Garcia, and Paige Kelly. 2017. “Another Avenue of Action: An Examination of
Climate Change Countermovement Industries use of PAC Donations and Their Relationship
to Congressional Voting Over Time.”Environmental Politics 26(6):1107–31.
Boussalis, Constantine and Travis G. Coan. 2016. “Text-mining the Signals of Climate Change
Doubt.”Global Environmental Change 36(1):89–100.
Box, Steven. 1983. Power, Crime and Mystification (Tavistock Studies in Sociology). London, UK:
Routledge Publications.
Brisman, Avi and Nigel South. 2015. “New “Folk Devils”, Denials and Climate Change: Applying
the Work of Stanley Cohen to Green Criminology and Environmental Harm.”Critical
Criminology 23(4):449–60.
Brulle, Robert J. 2014. “Institutionalizing Delay: Foundation Funding and the Creation of US
Climate Change Counter-Movement Organizations.”Climatic Change 122(4):681–94.
Butts, Carter T.. 2008. “Social Network Analysis: A Methodological Introduction.”Asian Journal
of Social Psychology 11(1):13–41.
Carmichael, Jason T. and Robert J. Brulle. 2017. “Elite Cues, Media Coverage, and Public
Concern: An Integrated Path Analysis of Public Concern on Climate Change, 2001-2013.”
Environmental Politics 26(2):232–22.
Center for Environmental Law. 2016. Smoke and Fumes. Retrieved February 24, 2017. <https://
www.smokeandfumes.org/>.
Cohen, Albert K. 1955. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York: Free Press.
Cromwell, Paul and Quint Thurman. 2003. “The Devil Made Me Do It: Use of Neutralization by
Shoplifters.”Deviant Behavior 24(6):535–50.
Dunlap, Riley E. and Arron M. McCright 2010. “Climate Change Denial: Sources, Actors and
Strategies.”Pp. 240–60 in Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by
Constance Lever-Tracy. Oxon, UK: Routledge Publications.
Dunlap, Riley E., and Peter J. Jacques. 2013. “Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative
Think Tanks Exploring the Connection.”American Behavioural Scientist 57(6):699–731.
Dunlap, Riley E and Arron M. McCright 2015. “Organized Climate Change Denial.”Pp. 144–60 in
The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by Riley E. Dunlap and Robert
Brulle. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Farrell, Justin. 2016. “Corporate Funding and Ideological Polarization about Climate Change.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(1):92–97.
Fooks, Gary, Anna Gilmore, Jeff Collin, Chris Holden, and Kelley Lee. 2013. “The Limits of
Corporate Social Responsibility: Techniques of Neutralization, Stakeholder Management and
Political CSR.”Journal of Business Ethics 112(2):283–99.
Foster, John B. 2011. “Capitalism and the Accumulation of Catastrophe.”Monthly Review 63(7):1–17.
Foster, John B., Clark Brett, and York Richard. 2010. The Ecological Rift: Capitalisms War on the
Earth. New York: Monthly Review Press.
CLIMATE CHANGE NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES 23
Fritsche, Immo. 2005. “Predicting Deviant Behavior by Neutralization: Myths and Findings.”
Deviant Behavior 26(5):483–510.
Greenpeace. nd.Retrieved January 2015–January 2016. www.exxonsecrets.org/
Grundmann, Reiner. 2013. “Climategate”and the Scientific Ethos.”Science, Technology, & Human
Values 38(1):67–93.
Hillyard, Paddy and Steve Tombs. 2004. “Towards a Political Economy of Harm: States,
Corporations and the Production of Inequality.”Pp. 30–54 in Beyond Criminology: Taking
Harm Seriously, edited by Paddy Hillyard, Christina Pantazis, Steve Tombs, Dave Gordon.
London: Pluto.
Klein, Naomi. 2015. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Kramer, Ronald C. 2013. “Carbon in the Atmosphere and Power in America: Climate Change as
State-Corporate Crime.”Journal of Crime and Justice 36(2):153–70.
Levy, David L. and Daniel Egan. 2003. “A Neo-Gramscian Approach to Corporate Political.”
Journal of Management Studies 40(4):803–29.
Lewandowsky, Stephan, Ullrich K. H. Ecker, and John Cook. 2017. “Beyond Misinformation:
Understanding and Coping with the Post-truth Era.”Journal of Applied Research in Research
in Memory and Cognition. Retrieved September 28, 2017. http://websites.psychology.uwa.ed
u.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/Lewandowsky.2017.JARMAC.pdf.
Lim, Merlyna. 2012. “Clicks, Cabs, and Coffee Houses: Social Media and Opposition al
Movements in Egypt, 2004-2011.”Journal of Communication 62(2):231–48.
Lombard, Matthew, Jennifer Snyder-Duch, and Cheryl C. Bracken. 2002. “Content Analysis in
Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Inter-Coder Reliability.”Human
Communication Research 28(4):587–604.
Lynch, Michael J., Ronald G. Burns, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2010. “Global Warming and State-
Corporate Crime: The Politicalization of Global Warming Under the Bush Administration.”
Crime, Law and Social Change 54(3–4):213–39.
Lynch, Michael J., Mahesh K. Nalla, and Keith W. Miller. 1989. “Cross-cultural Perceptions of
Deviance: The Case of Bhopal.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26(1):7–35.
Lynch, Michael J. and Paul B. Stretesky 2010. “Global warming, Global Crime: A Green
Criminological Perspective.”Pp 62–84 in Global Environmental Harm: Criminological
Perspectives, edited by Rob White. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.
Lynch, Michael J., Michael A. Long, Kimberly L. Barrett, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2013. “Is it a
Crime to Produce Ecological Disorganization? Why Green Criminology and Political
Economy Matter in the Analysis of Global Ecological Harms.”British Journal of Criminology
53(3):997–1016.
Mann, Michael E., Sonya K. Miller, Rahmstorf Stefan, Byron A. Steinman, and Tingley Martin.
2017. “Record Temperature Streak Bears Anthropogenic Fingerprint.”Geophysical Research
Letters 44(15):7936–44.
Maruna, Shadd and Heith Copes. 2005. “What Have we Learned from Five Decades of
Neutralization Research?”Crime and Justice 32:221–320.
McCright, Arron M. 2008. “The Social Bases of Climate Change Knowledge, Concern, and Policy
Support in the U.S General Public.”Hofstra Law Review 37(1):1017–1047.
McCright, Arron M. 2016. “Anti-Reflexivity and Climate Change Skepticism in the US General
Public.”Human Ecology Review 22(2):77–108.
McCright, Arron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2000. “Challenging Global Warming as a Social
Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement’s Counter-claims.”Social Problems 47
(4):499–522.
24 RUTH E. MCKIE
———. 2003. “Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement’s Impact on US Climate Change
Policy.”Social Problems 50(3):348–73.
———. 2010. “Anti-reflexivity the American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining
Climate Science and Policy.”Theory, Culture & Society 27(2–3):100–133.
McCright, Arron M., and Riley E. Dunlap. 2011. “The Politicization of Climate Change and
Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming, 2001–2010.”The
Sociological Quarterly 52(2):155–194.
McKewon, Elaine. 2012. “Talking Points Ammo: The Use of Neoliberal Think Tank Fantasy
Themes to Delegitimize Scientific Knowledge of Climate Change in Australian Newspapers.”
Journalism Studies 13(2):277–97.
McKie, Ruth E. 2018. “Rebranding the Climate Change Counter Movement Through a
Criminological and Political Economic Lens.”A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment to
Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne. Retrieved 25 January, 2018. <http://nrl.
northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/33466>.
Meesters, Marieke E. and Jelle H. Behagel. 2017. “The Social Licence to Operate: Ambiguities and
the Neutralization of Harm in Mongolia.”Resources Policy 53:274–82.
Merton, Robert K. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.”American Sociological Association 3
(5):672–82.
O’Neill, Saffron and Sophie Nicholson-Cole. 2009. ““Fear Won’tDoIt”Promoting Positive
Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representations.”Science
Communication 30(3):355–79.
Oreskes, Naomi and Eric M. Conway. 2011. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists
Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York:
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Pachauri, Rajendra K., Myles R. Allen, Vincente R. Barros, Broome John, Cramer Wolfgang, Christ
Renete, John A. Church, Clarke Leon, Dahe Qin, Dasgupta Purnamita, and Navroz K. Dubash.
2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.
Patz, Jonathan A., Michael A. McGeehin, Susan M. Bernard, Kristie L. Ebi, Paul R. Epstein, Anne
Grambsch, Duane J. Gubler, Paul Reiter, Isabelle Romieu, Joan B. Rose, Jonathan M. Samet,
and Juli Trtanj. 2000. “The Potential Health Impacts of Climate Variability and Change for
the United States: Executive Summary of the Report of The Health Sector of the US National
Assessment.”Environmental Health Perspectives 108(4):367–76.
Pearce, Frank and Steve Tombs. 2007. ““Dance Your Anger and Your Joys”: Multinational
Corporations, Power and Crime.”Pp 359–76 in The Blackwell Companion to Criminology,
edited by Colin Sumner. London: Routledge. Retrieved February 24, 2017. [Online] <https://d
oi.org/10.1002/9780470998960>.
Plehwe, Dieter. 2014. “Think Tank Networks and the Knowledge–interest Nexus: The Case of
Climate Change.”Critical Policy Studies 8(1):101–115.
Popovski, Vesselin and Kieran G. Mundy. 2012. “Defining Climate-Change Victims.”
Sustainability Science 7(1):5–16.
Schindeler, Emily and Janet Ransley. 2015. “Normalizing and Neutralizing Offending –The
Influence of Health and Safety Regulation.”Current Issues in Criminal Justice 26(3):305–16.
Schnaiberg, Allan. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
CLIMATE CHANGE NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES 25
Stretesky, Paul B., Michael A. Long, and Michael J. Lynch. 2013. The Treadmill of Crime:
Political Economy and Green Criminology, New Directions in Critical Criminology. London
& New York: Routledge.
Stretesky, Paul B., Michael A. Long, and Michael J. Lynch. 2014. The Treadmill of Crime,
Political Economy and Green Criminology. New Directions in Critical Criminology. Oxon:
Routledge.
Stoutenborough, James W., Xinsheng Liu, and Arnold Vedlitz. 2014. “Trends in Public Attitudes
toward Climate Change: The Influence of the Economy and Climategate on Risk, Information,
and Public Policy.”Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy 5(1):22–37.
Suchita, Rai, K. L. Wasewar, and A. Agnihotri. 2017. “Treatment of Alumina Refinery Waste (Red
Mud) Through Neutralization Techniques: A Review.”Waste Management & Research 35
(6):563–80.
Sykes, Gresham M. and David Matza. 1957. “Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of
Delinquency.”American Sociological Review 22(6):664–70.
Thomas, Chris D., Cameron Alison, Rhys E. Green, Bakkenes Michel, Linda J. Beaumont, Yvonne
C. Collingham, Barend F. Erasmus, Marinez F. De Siqueira, Grainger Alan, Hannah Lee, and
Hughes Lesley. 2004. “Extinction Risk from Climate Change.”Nature 427(6970):45–148.
Thompson, William E. and Jackie L. Harred. 1992. “Topless Dancers: Managing Stigma in a
Deviant Occupation.”Deviant Behavior 13(3):291–311.
Van Baak, Carlijn, Brittany E. Hayes, Joshua D. Freilich, and Steven M. Chermak. 2017. “Honor
Crimes in the United States and Offenders’Neutralization Techniques.”Deviant Behavior 39
(2):187–202.
Washington, Haydn and John Cook. 2011. Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. Abingdon,
UK: Earthscan.
Whyte, David. 2016. “It’s Common Sense, Stupid!Corporate Crime and Techniques of
Neutralization in the Automobile Industry.”Crime, Law and Social Chang 66(2):165–181.
Appendix A
List of Sources used to Create Aggregated Lists of CCCM
Organizations
Name of Source Source Reference
Heartland Institute,
Sponsors of
International Conference
on Climate Change
https://web.archive.org/web/*/
http://climateconference.heartland.org/
Civil Society Coalition
on Climate Change
http://web.archive.org/web/20071225195048/
http://csccc.info/reports/report_20.pdf
Cooler Heads Coalition http://www.globalwarming.org/about/
26 RUTH E. MCKIE
Appendix A
(continued)
Name of Source Source Reference
Brulle (2014) Brulle, R.J., 2014. “Institutionalizing delay:
foundation funding and the creation of US climate
change counter-movement organizations.
”Climatic Change 122(4):681–694.
Farrell (2016) “Corporate Funding and Ideological Polarization
about Climate Change.”Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 113(1):92–97.
Oreskes and
Conway (2011)
Oreskes, Naomi and Conway, Eric. M. 2011.
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists
Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco
Smoke to Global Warming. New York,
Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Plewhe (2014) Plewhe, Dieter. 2014. Think tank networks and the
knowledge–interest nexus: The case of climate
change. Critical Policy Studies, 8(1):101–115.
McKewon (2012) McKewon, E. 2012 Talking Points Ammo: The
Use of Neoliberal Think Tank Fantasy Themes to
Delegitimize Scientific Knowledge of Climate
Change in Australian Newspapers. Journalism
Studies, 13(2):277–297.
McCright
and Dunlap
(various dates)
Dunlap, Riley. E and McCright, Arron. M. 2015.
Organized climate change denial. In Dunlap, Riley,
E and Brulle, Robert (eds) The Oxford Handbook
of Climate Change and Society, Oxford: Oxford
University Press: 144–160.
McCright, Arron.M and Dunlap, Riley. E. 2000.
“Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem:
An Analysis of the Conservative Movement’s
Counter-claims.”Social Problems, 47(4):499–522.
McCright, Arron. M and Dunlap, Riley. E. 2003
“Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement’s
Impact on US Climate Change Policy.”Social
Problems, 50(3):348–373.
CLIMATE CHANGE NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES 27
Appendix A
(continued)
Name of Source Source Reference
Greenpeace (nd) www.exxonsecrets.org/
Corporate Europe
Observatory
https://corporateeurope.org/news/
funding-climate-change-denial
Mother Jones (2009) http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/
climate-deniers-atlas-foundation
Campaign Against
Climate Change:
Union of Concerned
Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/
fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html
Appendix B
Table B1
Mean Number of Neutralization Techniques at Each Data Point.
Min Max Mean SD
Total number of techniques
Time 1 .00 6.00 1.9158 1.23692
Time 2 .00 6.00 1.7337 1.24314
28 RUTH E. MCKIE
Table B2
Total Number of Neutralization Techniques Used at One Point in Time.
Time 1 Time 2
Freq. Percent Freq. Percent
Total number of neutralization techniques
.00 37 7.8 58 12.2
1.00 128 26.9 138 29.0
2.00 121 25.4 128 26.9
3.00 57 12.0 51 10.7
4.00 36 7.6 25 5.3
5.00 12 2.5 9 1.9
6.00 1 .2 4 .8
Appendix C
Bivariate Correlations For Climate Change Counter Movement Neutralization
Techniques in 2015
DOR DOI1 DOI2 DOV1 COC AHL Other
DOR 1
DOI1 .193* 1
DOI2 .215* .242* 1
DOV1 .108** .040 .079 1
COC .149* .091 .124** .084 1
AHL .012 .121** .135* .010 .036 1
Other .042 -.027 .113** .045 .076 .067 1
Notes:*p<.01 (2-tailed), **p<.05 (2-tailed).
N=417 (48 missing).
CLIMATE CHANGE NEUTRALIZATION TECHNIQUES 29
