Between distributive and procedural justice claims: Reframing patterns of discursive resistance against climate action

Ambitious policy measures required for transitioning towards a low-carbon energy system often face political and societal opposition. In this paper, we study discursive resistance towards currently debated mitigation policies in Austria from a justice perspective. By carrying out a discourse analysis that was based on newspaper articles, social media entries and expert interviews, we identified five categories of counter-storylines that resonate with either distributive or procedural justice concerns. Categories related to distributive justice concerns are “denial of responsibility”, “feasibility constraints” and “adverse impacts”, while categories related to procedural justice concerns are “lack of reliability” and “lack of inclusion”. Our categorization provides a concise and comprehensive overview of discursive opposition and allows for a better understanding of resistance against climate action. Several of the identified storylines relate to valid concerns that are important to consider in achieving a just transition. Policymakers are thus well advised to address resistance to climate policy and take associated distributive and procedural justice concerns seriously.