{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030574806359559722, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014675907052588666, 'mean_word_length': 5.390625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ideology, carbon emissions and climate change discourses in the Indian Ocean Region

It is extremely instructive to critically review the ways in which the interrelationships between the politics and geopolitics of climate change and development have been portrayed in the scholarly literature, in official reports, communiqués and in the media. For example, governments and businesses have used different scientific sources to legitimise contrasting positions to enhance political and economic outcomes (Grundmann 2007). Climate change discourses, among other things, have exhibited an ideological polarisation of politics, especially when they have involved issues related to Third World economic development (see Table 1). Indeed, climate change perspectives can be viewed as a ‘clash’ caused by developmental level (Powell 2010). From an environmental perspective, it is well known that human-induced global warming has been described as an ‘inconvenient truth’, especially for the rich, powerful and developed. Consequently, and seemingly in order to perpetuate an environment of uncertainty, so-called ‘climate change sceptics’ tend to assume or to argue that climate change is not happening; or, if it is, it may be good for us; or, we may not be able to do anything about it (Gore 2006, p. 283). Some critical analysts, however, are concerned over the way in which climate change science is depicted as ‘certainty’ (Chaturvedi and Doyle 2010). Indeed, certainty and uncertainty are by no means natural or universal concepts and what the West regards as uncertain is by no means an innocent representation. The insurance industry, for example, possesses considerable potential to mobilise discourses of ‘truth’ and to impose its structure of understanding of climate change and has an ability to manage uncertainty at all levels of business around the globe (Lobo-Guerrero 2010). From a climate sceptic perspective, it is argued that climate science lacks scientific rigour and that there has been a misrepresentation of the evidence for human-induced climate change since computer models have simplified and manipulated primary scientific evidence (Plimer 2009, pp. 14 15). In addition, other climate change sceptics argue that those who strongly advocate a position of human-induced climate change are guilty of creating a ‘climate of McCarthyism’ in which ‘anyone who questions green orthodoxy is accused of committing treason’ (Lomborg 2009).