State-Level Climate Obstruction and Discourses of Climate Delay: Insights from Arizona

Phoenix Eskridge-Aldama ^*

• Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, United States

In this study, I apply Lamb et al.’s (2020) discourses of climate delay (DCD) framework to analyze climate discourse in Arizona legislative sessions surrounding House Bill 2686 (2020) and House Bill 2101 (2022). By examining the rhetorical tactics used in these sessions, I contribute to counteracting the climate (change) countermovement (CCM) by identifying and critically assessing the discourse strategies employed to obstruct climate action. While the DCD framework has been widely referenced in theoretical discussions, its empirical application to state-level climate policy discourse remains limited, positioning this study as a significant contribution in both climate discourse analysis and policy evaluation. The analysis reveals that the most frequently employed discursive strategies involve emphasizing the negative consequences of climate action and promoting non-transformative solutions, particularly those aligning with fossil fuel interests. Notably, the study also highlights the absence of certain rhetorical strategies, such as "whataboutism," which may reflect a specific political and cultural context where pride in local identity and distinctiveness plays a role in resisting climate action. Based on these findings, I propose an expansion of the DCD framework to include a subcategory focused on "pride, identity, and culture," which would effectively capture how cultural values influence climate policy discourse. This study provides critical insights into how specific discursive tactics shape climate policymaking and offers a revised framework that could enhance future research on climate obstruction discourses.