TECHNOCRATIC OPTIMISM VS. MORAL IMPERATIVE: MAPPING GLOBAL ACADEMIC DISCOURSE ON CLIMATE JUSTICE

Abstract

This study examines global academic discourse on climate justice through co-occurrence and sentiment analysis of Scopus-indexed literature. Using a combined leximetric and sentimentomic approach, it analyzes the relationships between justice-related terms (e.g., action, inequality, mitigation, rights) and governance-related concepts (e.g., policy, responsibility, change). Findings show a dominant framing of climate justice around rights and action, reflecting moral obligation and intergenerational equity. In contrast, terms like inequality and injustice appear less frequently and are less sentimentally charged, suggesting a marginal role in policy-focused discourse. Sentiment analysis of 38 key texts (5,664 coded segments) reveals a prevailing technocratic optimism—46.6% positive, 34.6% neutral, and 18.8% negative. Texts with strong positive sentiment advocate equity-based transformation, while more negative texts critique policy shortcomings and systemic injustices. Terms like “emission” and “mitigation” align with neutral or positive sentiment, promoting pragmatic solutions, whereas “inequality” and “injustice” prompt constructive, rather than alarmist, tones. The study concludes that climate justice discourse is shaped by two overlapping frames: technocratic optimism focused on policy and mitigation, and a moral imperative centered on rights and equity. This duality reflects underlying tensions between pragmatic governance and ethical advocacy, offering new insights into how academic narratives influence the global climate justice agenda.