Klimatförändringar är ett allvarligt problem som hotar vår planet och alla dess invånare.Världsnaturfonden (World Wildlife Fund) arbetar för att minimera och förhindra de skrämmandekonsekvenser som vi oundvikligen kommer att möta om vi fortsätter att leva och konsumera som vi gör.Earth Hour-kampanjen är deras viktigaste kampanj som stöder den gröna rörelsen mot klimatförändringar.Earth Hour blev en succé från dag ett i 2007 i Sydney och spred sig snabbt över hela världen och blev englobalt känd händelse. Earth Hour lyckades skapa medvetenhet och föra allmänhetens uppmärksamhet tillämnet. Klimatförändringen fick stort nyhetsvärde i massmedia och genom sociala medier blev den större.Att använda kändisar var ett bra sätt att öka medvetenheten och sprida WWFs budskap som tex. i Turkiet.Sverige gick en annan väg för att ta itu med det globala uppvärmning problemet de kontaktade politikernadirekt. Earth Hour 2014 kommunikationskampanj analyserades och jämfördes genom intervjuer medrepresentanter för WWF i Sverige och Turkiet. Jag strävar efter att göra en djupare analys på likheter ochskillnader mellan dem. Det är intressant att se hur en global organisation genomför sinkommunikationskampanj "Earth Hour" annorlunda i två kulturellt separata länder för att ta itu medsamma problem. / Climate change is a serious problem that threatens our planet and all its inhabitants. The World WildlifeFund puts a great deal of effort to minimize the devastating effects and prevent the frighteningconsequences that the humanity will inevitably face if we do not alter our approach. Addressing this issue,the Earth Hour campaign is the organization’s most important campaign supporting the green movementagainst climate change. The campaign was a success from day one in 2007 in Sydney and quickly spreadaround the world achieving global recognition. The campaign managed to create awareness and bring thepublic's attention to the subject. For example, climate change gained great news value in the mass mediaand through social media, it became greater. Various methods were employed for the promotion of thecampaign. In Turkey, celebrity endorsement proved successful in raising awareness and conveying theWWF's message. Sweden took a different path to address the global warming problem and contactedpoliticians directly. In the current study, the Earth Hour 2014 communication campaigns in Sweden andTurkey were analysed and compared. Data for the study were collected through interviews withrepresentatives of WWF in Sweden and Turkey. With its findings, the study provides valuable insightsinto the similarities and differences between two campaigns. It is noteworthy to see how a globalorganization conducts its "Earth Hour" communication campaign differently in two culturally separatecountries to address the same problem.

The rapid spread of digital information and communication technologies since the turn of the century has led to renewed debates about globalisation and the power of new media to connect users across national, political and cultural borders. Environmental campaigns like WWF's Earth Hour, which touts itself as “the world's largest grassroots movement for the environment,” often adopt a utopian view of globalisation that celebrates what Marshall McLuhan termed the ‘global village'. While this global ethos might be useful in engaging the publics in collective action, this article argues that the way Earth Hour and similar campaigns actively construct representations of a single global village overlooks the lived inequalities between and among peoples within this imagined community. This article explores this tension using a quantitative and qualitative mixed-methods approach that combines a semiotic analysis of the Earth Hour 2019 promotional video, social media analysis of the use of #Connect2Earth hashtag among South African Twitter users, and in-depth interviews with current and former WWF-South Africa employees. This strategic approach is designed to juxtapose socially constructed representations of Earth Hour with on-the-ground user engagement in South Africa, and then triangulating these findings with qualitative interviews. The dissertation aims to explore the research question: In what ways does WWF's Earth Hour embody Marshall McLuhan's ideal ‘global village' and in what ways might it engender a form of eco-imperialism? This research question is operationalised through three subquestions: What kind of environmentalism do global environmental campaigns like Earth Hour promote? How do audiences in South Africa engage with Earth Hour on social media? How do local WWF of ices adapt global environmental campaigns to suit local audiences? This research contributes to emerging scholarship, rooted in environmental justice and decolonial studies, that is critical of mainstream environmental movements not to discourage environmental consciousness but to ultimately reformulate it.

The purpose of this study was to examine how Swedish newspapers framed the campaign Earth Hour. Did media encourage their audience to join in and how did they create a sense of togetherness regarding the campaign? The theories connected to the study are media logic, media events, identity and the media, collective togetherness, symbolic interactionism and discourse. The method used was a qualitative discourse analysis. We analysed three Swedish newspapers: Aftonbladet, Barometern and Svenska Dagbladet. We analysed fifteen different texts ranging from regular news articles to columns. The results showed that Earth Hour continuously is presented as either a way to save the environment or as a useless stunt that people participate in to quiet their guilty conscience. Whether the text in question is positive or not regarding Earth Hour the message is always about urging the audience to act by participating or take an active choice to keep the light on and thereby not comply with the campaign. The results also showed that there are three different types of characters represented in the texts that serve as a way to create togetherness and awareness regarding the Earth Hour campaign. These three characters are the enthusiast, the prophet of doom and the sceptic. More than one of them is never represented in the same text and their main purpose is to symbolise the message that the text has. Continuously the characters give you a view of how to be a participant or a non-participant. These are the two sides you are given, there is nothing in between. By only showing one side of the discussion about the campaign the news papers were creating an "us" versus "them" kind of mentality where everything but "us" were considered wrong or simply ignored.

<p>The purpose of this study was to examine how Swedish newspapers framed the campaign Earth Hour. Did media encourage their audience to join in and how did they create a sense of togetherness regarding the campaign?</p><p>The theories connected to the study are media logic, media events, identity and the media, collective togetherness, symbolic interactionism and discourse. The method used was a qualitative discourse analysis. We analysed three Swedish newspapers: Aftonbladet, Barometern and Svenska Dagbladet. We analysed fifteen different texts ranging from regular news articles to columns.</p><p>The results showed that Earth Hour continuously is presented as either a way to save the environment or as a useless stunt that people participate in to quiet their guilty conscience. Whether the text in question is positive or not regarding Earth Hour the message is always about urging the audience to act by participating or take an active choice to keep the light on and thereby not comply with the campaign. The results also showed that there are three different types of characters represented in the texts that serve as a way to create togetherness and awareness regarding the Earth Hour campaign. These three characters are the enthusiast, the prophet of doom and the sceptic. More than one of them is never represented in the same text and their main purpose is to symbolise the message that the text has. Continuously the characters give you a view of how to be a participant or a non-participant. These are the two sides you are given, there is nothing in between. By only showing one side of the discussion about the campaign the news papers were creating an "us" versus "them" kind of mentality where everything but "us" were considered wrong or simply ignored.</p>