Search

Promoting climate change discourses may potentially create a useful space for addressing the effects of climate change in Tanzania. During disasters such as floods, everyone obfuscates their agency and blames the other for causing climate change effects. This paper examines the discourse of climate change among scientists, government officials, and the non-scientific Tanzanian stakeholders on climate change and adaptation strategies after the 2019-2020 effects. These actors obfuscate responsibilities and attribute blame on the other for accelerating climate change effects. This paper examines how these attributions contribute to enhancing resilience and adaptation strategies. The paper was theoretically guided by the divided subject and positioning theories. Data for this paper were gathered from YouTube covering the subject. The results suggest that while none of the actors accepts responsibility for accelerating climate change; "what is happening and what should be done" gradually turn into "who is responsible for the mess". Divisive discourse like this is likely to keep Tanzania wobbling to create a resilient society to confront the challenges of climate change. The paper raises the need for the facilitation of a better communication between climate change science and the non-scientific audience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores how climate services are framed in the literature and possible implications for climate services' policies and projects. By critically exploring the frames around climate services, the wider objective is to encourage more reflexive and responsible research in the field, particularly given the huge challenge that climate change represents. By using a framing analysis based on an extensive literature review, five dominant frames were identified. Climate services are mainly framed (1) as a technological innovation, (2) as a market, (3) as an interface between users and producers, (4) as a risk management tool, and (5) from an ethical angle. The predominant frames influence how we think about climate services, shared assumptions, and the way in which policies and projects are designed. To prevent negative effects of climate services on the ground, such as inequalities, the main recommendations include establishing interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary dialogues between different communities of practice and players, increasing empirical and social science research to improve our understanding of this new field, and finally, re-thinking climate services in terms of adaptation rather than as the mere production of new information products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]