Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Sep 14;13(9):e0203463.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203463. eCollection 2018.

Shifting echo chambers in US climate policy networks

Lorien Jasny  1 , Amanda M Dewey  2 , Anya Galli Robertson  3 , William Yagatich  4 , Ann H Dubin  5 , Joseph McCartney Waggle  6 , Dana R Fisher  2
Affiliations

Shifting echo chambers in US climate policy networks

Lorien Jasny et al. PLoS One. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Although substantial attention has focused on efforts by the new Administration to block environmental policies, climate politics have been contentious in the US since well before the election of Donald Trump. In this paper, we extend previous work on empirical examinations of echo chambers in US climate politics using new data collected on the federal climate policy network in summer 2016. We test for the similarity and differences at two points in time in homophily and echo chambers using Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGM) to compare new findings from 2016 to previous work on data from 2010. We show that echo chambers continue to play a significant role in the network of information exchange among policy elites working on the issue of climate change. In contrast to previous findings where echo chambers centered on a binding international commitment to emission reductions, we find that the pre-existing echo chambers have almost completely disappeared and new structures have formed around one of the main components of the Obama Administration's national climate policy: the Clean Power Plan. These results provide empirical evidence that science communication and policymaking at the elite level shift in relation to the policy instruments under consideration.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have read the journal's policies and would like to declare the following competing interests: Outside of the present study, AHD was contracted as a temporary employee by the MirRam Group. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Structural and attitudinal components of an echo chamber.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Frequencies for 2016 attitudinal data.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Terms used in the ERG models.
Fig 4
Fig 4
Echo chambers in 2016: A histogram by organization type for the numbers of echo chambers where all hold same view on 'Binding Commitment' (left), A histogram by organization type for the numbers of echo chambers where all hold same view on 'Clean Power Plan' (middle), the 2016 network showing view on 'Clean Power Plan'.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Comparison of 2010 and 2016 data by the information network and the repeated attributes (Anthropogenic, Binding Commitment, Cap and Trade).
Fig 6
Fig 6. Results from 3 ERG models; Model 1 displays the results for the 2010 data, Model 2 repeats Model 1 but with 2016 data, and Model 3 adds terms for Clean Power Plan (CPP).
Fig 7
Fig 7. Model adequacy checks for ERG models.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bomberg E. Environmental politics in the Trump era: an early assessment. Environmental Politics. 2017;26: 956–963. 10.1080/09644016.2017.1332543 - DOI
    1. Jorgenson A, Schor J, Huang X. Income Inequality and Carbon Emissions in the United States: A State-level Analysis, 1997–2012. Ecological Economics. 2017;134: 40–48. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.016 - DOI
    1. Loarie SR, Duffy PB, Hamilton H, Asner GP, Field CB, Ackerly DD. The velocity of climate change. Nature. 2009;462: 1052 10.1038/nature08649 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oreskes N. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science. 2004;306: 1686–1686. 10.1126/science.1103618 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sterner T. Economics: Higher costs of climate change. Nature. 2015;527: 177–178. 10.1038/nature15643 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types