{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"analysis_type":["critical discourse analysis"]},"warnings":[{"code":"facet_value_not_in_vocabulary","message":"Value 'critical discourse analysis' for facet 'analysis_type' is not in the controlled vocabulary."}]},"total":{"value":3,"relation":"eq"},"page":1,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?analysis_type=critical+discourse+analysis","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"sei-000876","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/sei-000876","title":"Governments reconcile oil and gas production with climate goals","publisher":{"name":"Stockholm Environment Institute","organization":"stockholm-environment-institute"},"document_type":"research paper","language":"en","date_published":"2024-12-09","source_url":"https://www.sei.org/publications/governments-reconcile-oil-gas-production-climate-goals/","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The research analyzes how Nigeria and Colombia use specific narratives and discursive strategies to justify continued oil and gas expansion while maintaining climate commitments, highlighting the role of power relations in slowing the energy transition.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"sei-000876#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Governments in Nigeria and Colombia both utilize narratives that link oil and gas extraction to energy transitions, energy security, and development to justify hydrocarbon expansion.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"sei-000876#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Nigeria employs an additional narrative focused on its international positioning, and both countries adapt their narratives based on specific historical and geographical political economies.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"sei-000876#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"National governments employ several specific discursive strategies to legitimize further oil and gas extraction, including the use of managerial and technocentric language, the naturalization of production, strategic use of scale, and the delegitimization of alternative futures for oil and gas.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"sei-000876#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["fossil fuel industry","energy transition","energy security","petroleum industry"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["critical discourse analysis","textual analysis"]},{"id":"foei-001166","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/foei-001166","title":"The Great Takeover","publisher":{"name":"Friends of the Earth International","organization":"friends-of-the-earth-international"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2021-12","source_url":"https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/The-great-takeover_mapping-of-multistakeholderism-in-global-governance_2021.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The report maps 103 multistakeholder initiatives (MSIs) to demonstrate how transnational corporations and mega-philanthropies are displacing traditional state-led multilateralism. It identifies a pattern where the World Economic Forum (WEF) and large foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation drive a 'stakeholder capitalism' agenda, often using the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as legitimacy. The analysis reveals a significant democratic deficit, with affected communities and Global South governments largely excluded from decision-making, while the UN system often acts as a strategic partner that legitimises these corporate-led mechanisms.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"foei-001166#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The report identifies a systemic trend of 'multistakeholderization' where the locus of global decision-making is shifted from the multilateral system to mixed mechanisms where the private sector dominates, supported by some states and big philanthropists.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"foei-001166#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The World Economic Forum (WEF) is identified as a central actor driving the privatisation of global governance, promoting a model of 'stakeholder capitalism' and the 'Great Reset' to strengthen corporate power under the guise of building a better society.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"foei-001166#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Many MSIs use the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to justify their existence, but often 'cherry-pick' targets. For example, in internet governance, 33% of MSIs focus on cybersecurity and terrorism, ignoring issues like mass disinformation and hate speech.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"foei-001166#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The report highlights a 'democratic governance deficit' where 'stakeholders' are designated by convenors, often excluding affected communities. Only ten organisations representing farmers, Indigenous peoples, women, and workers were identified across the mapped MSIs.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"foei-001166#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"In global health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) exerts disproportionate influence, funding over 15% of the surveyed MSIs and potentially becoming the single biggest donor to the WHO.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"foei-001166#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The UN system is described as an active facilitator of multistakeholderism, often acting as a 'strategic partner' to provide political legitimacy to corporate-led initiatives, which paradoxically undermines democratic multilateralism.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"foei-001166#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"In environmental governance, the report argues that 'nature-based solutions' and 'natural capital' are used to commodify nature, treating it as an economic asset to foster capitalist growth rather than protecting biodiversity for its own sake.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"foei-001166#insight-7","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Internet governance is characterised as 'partially monarchic' (US-dominated) and 'partially oligarchic' (dominated by a few private corporations), with Big Tech companies setting the rules and standards for themselves.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"foei-001166#insight-8","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"In the food and agriculture sector, MSIs often prioritise market interests and 'climate-smart' technologies over human rights and food sovereignty, with corporate actors like the WEF and WBCSD leading influential platforms.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"foei-001166#insight-9","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The report notes a geographic imbalance in power, with two-thirds of the 103 mapped MSIs headquartered in just five cities: Geneva, Washington DC, New York, Rome, and Paris.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"foei-001166#insight-10","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["Sustainable Development Goals","nature-based solutions","natural capital","climate finance","biodiversity","carbon emission trading","Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation","renewable energy","environmental governance","climate justice","food system","agroecology"],"geography_discussed":["Geneva","Washington, D.C.","New York City","Rome","Paris","United States","People's Republic of China","Brazil","Colombia","Ghana","Thailand","Seychelles"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["mapping","critical discourse analysis","policy analysis"]},{"id":"cssn-000024","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/cssn-000024","title":"Constructing the Millennial Other in United States Press Coverage of the Green New Deal","publisher":{"name":"Climate Social Science Network","organization":"climate-social-science-network"},"document_type":"research paper","language":"en","date_published":"2020-10-06","source_url":"https://cssn.org/constructing-the-millennial-other-in-united-states-press-coverage-of-the-green-new-deal/","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The research finds that both The New York Times and Wall Street Journal frame the Green New Deal as a \"dangerous policy\" by depicting its Millennial supporters as \"extremist Millennial “Others.”\" This discursive strategy of casting supporters as a threat is used to discredit the policy's viability and promote a market-based carbon tax as the only viable solution, thereby suppressing a diversity of political perspectives and stunting agonistic media pluralism.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cssn-000024#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The New York Times and Wall Street Journal both characterize the Green New Deal as a dangerous policy advocated by extremist Millennial \"Others,\" using strategies of positioning, de/legitimization, and naturalization to frame supporters as a threat in the post-2016 US political environment.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cssn-000024#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The portrayal of Millennial supporters as a threat serves to marginalize the Green New Deal and elevate the market-based carbon tax as the sole viable path forward.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cssn-000024#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["Green New Deal","carbon tax","climate policy"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["critical discourse analysis"]}]}