İklim Değişikliğinin İnsan Güvenliği Sorunu Olarak Çerçevelenmesi: Trump Döneminde ABD ve Avrupa Birliği'nin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Öz

Bu makale, iki büyük küresel aktör olan Amerika Birleşik Devletleri (ABD) ile Avrupa Birliği’nin (AB) iklim değişikliğini insan güvenliği perspektifinden nasıl çerçevelediğini, özellikle de Trump dönemi odağında incelemektedir. Çerçeveleme Teorisi’nden yararlanan çalışma, politik anlatıların ve politika söylemlerinin iklim değişikliği olgusuna nasıl anlam kazandırdığını ve bu anlamlandırma sürecinin kamu algısını ve politika önceliklerini nasıl şekillendirdiğini açıklamaktadır. Resmî konuşmalar ve politika belgeleri üzerine yapılan nitel karşılaştırmalı analiz, ABD ile AB’nin çerçeveleme yaklaşımları arasında önemli farklar bulunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Trump yönetimi iklim değişikliğini ağırlıklı olarak ekonomik çıkarlar ve enerji bağımsızlığı bağlamında ele alırken, AB bunu çok taraflı iş birliği gerektiren küresel ve insani bir güvenlik meselesi olarak çerçevelemiştir. Makale, küresel aktörlerin iklim değişikliğini bir insan güvenliği paradigması içinde çerçeveleyip çerçevelemediklerinin, çerçeveleme süreçlerinin güvenlik kavrayışını nasıl şekillendirdiğini ve çevresel alan ile siyasal alan arasındaki ilişkiyi nasıl yeniden tanımladığını anlamak açısından kritik olduğunu ileri sürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İklim değişikliği
• insan güvenliği
• çerçeveleme teorisi
• Amerika Birleşik Devletleri
• Avrupa Birliği

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmanın yürütülmesi ve yazımında bilimsel ve etik ilkelere uyulduğu ve kullanılan tüm kaynakların doğru biçimde atıf yapılarak gösterildiği beyan edilir.

Teşekkür

Bu çalışmanın hazırlanma sürecindeki değerli katkıları için Prof. Dr. Armağan Gözkaman’a teşekkür ederim.

FRAMING CLIMATE CHANGE AS A HUMAN SECURITY CHALLENGE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE U.S. UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

Öz

This article examines how two major global actors—the United States (U.S.) and the European Union (EU)—have framed climate change from a human security perspective, with a particular focus on the Trump era. Drawing on Frame Theory, the study explains how political narratives and policy discourses construct the meaning of climate change and analyzes how this construction shapes public perception and policy priorities. Through a qualitative comparative analysis of official speeches and policy documents, significant differences are identified between the framing approaches of the U.S. and the EU. The Trump administration primarily addressed climate change within the context of economic interests and energy independence, whereas the EU framed it as a global and humanitarian security issue requiring multilateral cooperation. The article argues that determining whether global actors frame climate change within a human security paradigm is crucial for understanding how framing processes shape the conceptualization of security and redefine the relationship between the environmental and political spheres.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Climate change
• human security
• frame theory
• United States
• European Union

Etik Beyan

It is declared that scientific and ethical principles were followed in conducting and writing this study, and that all sources used have been properly cited.

Teşekkür

The author would like to thank Prof. Dr. Armağan Gözkaman for the valuable feedback and insightful comments provided during the preparation of this study.

Kaynakça

1. References ABC News. (2025, September 23). FULL SPEECH: Trump addresses United Nations General Assembly [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLoxCqc3Tro
2. Allan, J. I., and Hadden, J. (2017). Exploring the framing power of NGOs in global climate politics. Environmental Politics, 26(4): 600–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1319017
3. Bakker, C., and Francioni, F. (Eds.). (2016). The EU, the US and global climate governance. Routledge. ISBN 9781315616315.
4. Barnett, M. (1999). Culture, strategy and foreign policy change: Israel’s road to Oslo. European Journal of International Relations, 5(1), 5–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066199005001001
5. Barnett, J., and Adger, W. N. (2007). Climate change, human security and violent conflict. Political Geography, 26(6), 639–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.03.003
6. Baute, S. (2024). The distributive politics of the green transition: A conjoint experiment on EU climate change mitigation policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 32(1): 52–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2024.2304609
7. BBC News Türkçe. (2018, November 27). Trump kendi hükümetinin küresel ısınma raporu için “İnanmıyorum” dedi. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-46353267
8. Bob, C. (2005). The marketing of rebellion: Insurgents, media, and international activism. Cambridge University Press. https://ssrn.com/abstract=907725

9. Broadhead, L.-A. (2002). International environmental politics: The limits of green diplomacy. Lynne Rienner Publishers, ISBN 1-58826-092-5.
10. Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., and Iyengar, S. (2016). The end of framing as we know it … and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1): 7–23.
11. Carlarne, C. (2006). Climate change policies an ocean apart: EU and US climate change policies compared. Penn State Environmental Law Review, 14.
12. Carlarne, C. P. (2010). Climate change law and policy: EU and US approaches. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199553419.
13. Chong, D., and Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10: 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
14. Dalby, S. (2013). Climate change as an issue of human security. In M. R. Redclift and M. Grasso (Eds.), Handbook on climate change and human security (pp. 21–40). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857939111.00009
15. Dupont, C., et al. (2023). Three decades of EU climate policy: Racing toward climate neutrality? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/wcc.863
16. EEAS. (2016). Shared vision, common action: A stronger Europe — A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy.
17. EEAS. (2020, November 9). Climate change and defence roadmap. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12741-2020-INIT/en/pdf
18. Emran, S. (2024, November 11). Outlook on climate policy under President Trump’s renewed mandate. Policy Center for the New South. https://www.policycenter.ma/publications/outlook-climate-policy-under-president-trumps-renewed-mandate
19. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4): 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
20. Entman, R. M. (2009). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226210735.001.0001
21. European Commission. (2001, December 21). Withdrawal of Commission proposals (COM(2001) 763 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2001:0763:FIN:EN:PDF
22. European Commission. (2013, March 26). The 2015 international climate change agreement — Shaping international climate policy beyond 2020 (COM(2013) 167 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0167
23. European Commission. (2015, January 5). Climate change – What the EU is doing [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfbi-oOA0bk
24. European Commission. (2019, December 11). The European Green Deal (COM(2019) 640 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:b828d165-1c22-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1.0002.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
25. European Commission. (2021, July 14). Fit for 55 (COM(2021) 550 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0550
26. European Commission. (2025, March 25). Commission notice – Guidance on the Social Climate Plans (C/2025/1597). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C_2025/1597
27. European Commission. (n.d.a). Consequences of climate change. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/climate-change/consequences-climate-change_en
28. European Commission. (n.d.b). Corporate sustainability due diligence. https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/doing-business-eu/sustainability-due-diligence-responsible-business/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence_en
29. European Commission. (n.d.c). EU climate action. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action_en
30. European Commission and High Representative. (2008, March 14). Climate change and international security (S113/08). https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/reports/99387.pdf
31. European Council. (2001, December 15). Presidency conclusions, Laeken. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/00100-r1.%20ann-r1.en1.html
32. Finnemore, M. (2015). Constructing norms of humanitarian intervention. In R. K. Betts (Ed.), Conflict after the Cold War (pp. 272–289). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315664484
33. Frumkin, H., Haines, A., and Rao, M. (2025). The US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement: Could it trump progress on climate change and health? BMJ, 388: r185. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r185
34. Gavin, G., and Gros, M. (10 October 2025). EU refuses to bow to Trump demands to tear up business rules. Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-trade-deal-donald-trump-tariffs-green-regulations/
35. Goddard, S. E. (2009). When right makes might: How Prussia overturned the European balance of power. International Security, 33(3): 110–142. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2009.33.3.110
36. Gözkaman, A. (2020). The Trump administration: An impossible thrust for Turkey-EU relations. In H. Işıksal and O. Örmeci (Eds.), Historical examinations and current issues in Turkish-American relations. Peter Lang.
37. Gözkaman, A. (2022). Avrupa Birliği - Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ilişkileri. In T. Ö. Kaya and A. Sarıkamış Kaya (Eds.), Avrupa Birliği’nin küresel ilişkileri (pp. 13–40). Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Yayınları.
38. Gözkaman, A. (2024). Complementarity between the EU and NATO in light of the war in Ukraine: An analysis from the perspective of collective securitization theory. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 24(3): 469–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2024.2358586
39. Gözkaman, A. (2025a). When values meet enlargement: Framing Ukraine’s future in the European Union through the lens of the logic of appropriateness. Global Discourse: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1332/20437897Y2025D000000066
40. Gözkaman, A. (2025b). A reply to ‘Narratives as tools of sociological imagination’ … Global Discourse: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1332/20437897Y2025D000000082
41. Gregoratti, C. (2025, October 16). Human security. Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/human-security
42. Hallahan, K. (2008). Strategic framing. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecs107
43. Hayes, J., and Knox-Hayes, J. (2014). Security in climate change discourse: Analyzing the divergence between US and EU approaches to policy. Global Environmental Politics, 14(2): 82–101. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00230
44. Holden, E., and Lin, J. C. F. (2018, June 3). Trump’s climate science doubters. Politico. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/climate-science-doubters/
45. Richter, P. M., and Wanner, J. (2025). EU climate policy in a globalized world. EconPol Policy Report, 53. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/325305/1/1933531991.pdf
46. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1992). First Assessment Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_full_report.pdf
47. Jacobs, J. W., and Khan, S. S. (2025). Erasing the evidence: United States climate rollbacks and the implications for public health. PLOS Climate, 4(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000667
48. Jordan, A., et al. (2012). Understanding the paradoxes of multilevel governing: Climate change policy in the European Union. Global Environmental Politics, 12(2): 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00108
49. Jotzo, F., Depledge, J., and Winkler, H. (2018). US and international climate policy under President Trump. Climate Policy, 18(7). https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1490051
50. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4): 341–350. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
51. Lefebvre, B., and Colman, Z. (2025, October 22). Trump takes aim at European climate law after killing UN shipping fee. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/22/trump-administration-pushes-europe-to-change-corporate-climate-law-00618140
52. Martus, E. (2021). Policymaking and policy framing: Russian environmental politics under Putin. Europe-Asia Studies, 73(5): 869–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2020.1865275
53. Mason, M. (2015). Climate change and human security: The international governance architectures, policies and instruments. In M. R. Redclift and M. Grasso (Eds.), Handbook on climate change and human security (pp. 382–401). Edward Elgar. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64751/1/Climate%20change.pdf
54. Milman, O. (2025, October 22). US demands EU roll back new climate rules to allow rise in gas imports. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/22/us-eu-climate-rules-lng-gas
55. O’Brien, K., St. Clair, A. L., and Kristoffersen, B. (2010). The framing of climate change: Why it matters. In K. O’Brien, A. L. St. Clair, and B. Kristoffersen (Eds.), Climate change, ethics and human security. Cambridge University Press.
56. Paris, R. (2001). Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? International Security, 26(2), 87–102. https://users.metu.edu.tr/utuba/Paris.pdf
57. Paris, R. (2005). Rational and Irrational Approaches to Human Security: A Reply to Ralph Pettman. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 18(3), 479–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570500345236
58. Payne, R. A. (2001). Persuasion, frames and norm construction. European Journal of International Relations, 7(1): 37–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066101007001002
59. Pettman, R. (2005). Human Security as Global Security: Reconceptualising Strategic Studies. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 18(1), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570500059878
60. Rayner, T., and Jordan, A. (2016, August 5). Climate change policy in the European Union. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-47
61. Rowe, E. W. (2013). Climate science, Russian politics, and the framing of climate change. WIREs Climate Change: 457–465. Doi:10.1002/wcc.235.
62. Rushton, S. (2010). Framing AIDS: Securitization, development-ization, rights-ization. Global Health Governance, 4(1).
63. Saul, B., and McAdam, J. (2009). An insecure climate for human security? Climate-induced displacement and international law. In A. Edwards and C. Ferstman (Eds.), Human security and non-citizens. Cambridge University Press. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1292605
64. Skovgaard, J. (2013). EU climate policy after the crisis. Environmental Politics, 23(1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.818304
65. Sorkar, M. N. I. (2022). Power and issue framing in the contemporary world: The case of climate negotiation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9740-1
66. Sperling, J., and Webber, M. (2017). NATO and the Ukraine crisis: Collective securitization. European Journal of International Security, 2(1): 19–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2016.17
67. Sperling, J., and Webber, M. (2019). The European Union: Security governance and collective securitization. West European Politics, 42(2): 228–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2018.1510193
68. TGRT Haber. (2025, January, 16). ABD Başkanı Joe Biden veda konuşması gerçekleştirdi [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0JXgRU4S-0
69. The White House. (2021, January 27). President Biden’s historic climate agenda. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/climate/
70. Trump, D. J. (2025a, October 17). National Energy Dominance Month 2025 (Presidential Proclamation). The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/10/national-energy-dominance-month-2025/
71. Trump, D. J. (2025b, January 30). Executive Order 14162: Putting America first in international environmental agreements. Federal Register. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-01-30/pdf/2025-02010.pdf
72. Trump, D. J. (2025c, January 28). Executive Order 14148: Initial rescissions of harmful executive orders and actions. Federal Register. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-01-28/pdf/2025-01901.pdf
73. Trump, D. J. (2025d, April 14). Executive Order 14260: Protecting American energy from state overreach. Federal Register. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-04-14/pdf/2025-06379.pdf
74. Trump, D. J. (2025e, May 29). Executive Order 1430: Restoring gold standard science. Federal Register. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-05-29/pdf/2025-09802.pdf
75. United Nations. (2021, December 9). Climate change ‘a multiplier effect’, aggravating instability, conflict, terrorism. https://press.un.org/en/2021/sgsm21074.doc.htm
76. United Nations. (n.d.). Five ways the climate crisis impacts human security. Climate Action. Retrieved October 16, 2025, https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/human-security
77. United Nations Development Programme. (1990). Human development report 1990. Oxford University Press. https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/hdr1990encompletenostats.pdf
78. United Nations Development Programme. (1994). Human development report 1994. Oxford University Press. https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/hdr1994encompletenostats.pdf
79. United Nations General Assembly. (2015, September 25). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1). https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf
80. United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security. (2016, January). Human security handbook. https://www.un.org/humansecurity/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/h2.pdf
81. United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2025 https://www.un.org/humansecurity/#
82. United States Department of State. (2019, November 4). On the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. https://2017-2021.state.gov/on-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement/
83. Vultee, F. (2010). Securitization: A new approach to the framing of the ‘war on terror’. Journalism Practice, 4(1): 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512780903172049
84. Wendler, F. (2022). Framing climate change in the EU and US after the Paris Agreement. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04059-7
85. Wong, E. (2016, November 18). Trump has called climate change a Chinese hoax. Beijing says it is anything but. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/world/asia/china-trump-climate-change.html