How U.S. Congressional Language Shapes Climate Policy

Military Macaw

20-10-2025

Later, awakening, Zhuangzi murmurs, “The Dao is best left unillustrated.”

In Kingfisherish Wandering [1]

© Wix

Public debates about climate change are not only shaped by science but also by the language used to describe it. The words “climate change” and “global warming” have long carried different emotional tones and political implications, influencing how citizens perceive urgency, causation, and responsibility. In the United States, these differences have become deeply partisan, with political leaders using language not just to inform but to persuade, defend, or deny. Understanding these rhetorical strategies is critical, because how problems are framed determines what solutions appear possible [2-4]. The rise of computational linguistics, particularly natural language processing, now enables researchers to examine these dynamics at scale, tracing how political discourse has evolved alongside shifting public awareness and scientific consensus.

A new study by Van Matre, Krakoff, and Fullerton [5] employs advanced natural language processing techniques to analyze how members of the U.S. Congress have framed climate change over three decades, from 1987 to 2017. Using à la carte word embeddings and embedding regressions, the authors examined over 30 years of Congressional floor speeches to trace semantic shifts in how Democrats and Republicans discuss “climate change” and “global warming”.

The results reveal a striking divergence in political language. Republicans increasingly associated “global warming” with denialist framings—terms suggesting hoaxes or exaggeration—particularly during the 110th Congress (2007–2009), coinciding with legislative attempts to regulate carbon emissions. Democrats, by contrast, maintained a consistent, solution-oriented tone across the same period, emphasizing mitigation, adaptation, and stewardship. Both parties, however, exhibited a gradual increase in fatalistic language, reflecting broader societal anxiety about climate inevitability. Interestingly, by the 114th Congress (2015–2017), both parties showed a partial convergence in the semantics of denial, though major gaps remained in solution-oriented discourse.

Language shapes not only public understanding but also the perceived urgency and agency of climate action. By quantifying these linguistic differences, the study shows how partisanship permeates even the emotional connotations of scientific terms, influencing how citizens perceive environmental responsibility [6,7]. The authors’ metaphor of “semantic pools” aptly captures this polarization: Democrats and Republicans “swim” in distinct linguistic environments, shaping public imagination and policy agendas in fundamentally different ways.

When political discourse becomes dominated by denialism or fatalism, NQ at the societal level declines: citizens feel disempowered, and collective peace with nature erodes [8]. Conversely, language centered on resilience, stewardship, and innovation reflects a higher NQ, fostering both individual serenity and social peace [9]. As the study demonstrates, cultivating solution-oriented communication in politics is not just a matter of policy—it is a pathway toward restoring harmony between human systems and the planet.

References

[1] Nguyen MH. (2025). Kingfisherish Wandering. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FVLLLXNW/

[2] Guenther L, et al. (2023). Framing as a bridging concept for climate change communication: A systematic review based on 25 years of literature. Communication Research, 51(4), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221137165

[3] Spence A, Pidgeon N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002

[4] Jones M, Crow D. (2018). Narratives as tools for influencing policy change. Policy & Politics, 46(2), 217-234. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318X15230061022899

[5] Matre JCV, Krakoff IL, Fullerton AH. (2025). A natural language processing approach to identifying partisan framing of climate change denialism, fatalism, and solutions in US Congressional speeches. Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70079 

[6] Leiserowitz A, et al. (2014). What's in a name? Global warming vs. climate change. Yale University and George Mason University.

[7] Schuldt JP, Roh S. (2014). Media frames and cognitive accessibility: What do “global warming” and “climate change” evoke in partisan minds? Environmental Communication, 8(4), 529-548. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.909510

[8] Vuong QH, Nguyen MH. (2025). On Nature Quotient. Pacific Conservation Biology, 31, PC25028. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC25028

[9] Nguyen MH, Ho MT, La VP. (2025). On “An” (安): Inner peace through uncertainty, nature quotient, and harmony with Dao. http://books.google.com/books/about?id=NIKMEQAAQBAJ