A two-decade review of climate communication finds established institutions still dominate online discussion, while climate sceptics have gained disproportionate visibility
Social media has broadened participation in climate-change communication but has not delivered the wholesale democratisation once expected, according to a review by researchers at the University of Zurich and the University of Münster.
The review examined international research covering platforms including X, TikTok and YouTube, alongside regionally important services such as Weibo, WeChat, Bilibili and ShareChat. The findings suggest that while the range of voices participating in climate discussions has expanded, established actors such as governments, political organisations and news media, continue to shape much of the debate.
At the same time, climate-change sceptics have been particularly successful in gaining visibility among newer participants.
The findings have implications for environmental organisations and other groups seeking to engage audiences online. The assumption that social platforms inherently give grassroots movements, campaigners and citizens a greater opportunity to bypass traditional media gatekeepers is not supported by the evidence, researchers say.
The information environment is also becoming more fragmented. Researchers have traditionally focused on ‘echo chambers’ within individual platforms, where users predominantly encounter people with similar views. But they suggest that antagonism may develop between platforms, as users migrate in response to changes in ownership, moderation policies and fact-checking practices. In our own experience at EJ, we have seen a migration from X to BlueSky among the more environmentally concerned groups.
Julia Metag from the Department of Communication at the University of Münster said; ‘In the future, divisions presumably will occur less within platforms than between them. Social media users may then be in separate, more homogeneous platform universes where they will come in less contact with differing views.’
The emergence of alternative platforms that deliberately position themselves against established moderation norms could reinforce this trend. Users may increasingly inhabit separate online information ecosystems, reducing opportunities to encounter competing perspectives.
For climate communicators, that represents a challenge. Effective messaging on one platform may have limited reach or impact in another, while increasingly fragmented audiences could make it harder to build a common understanding of climate risks, evidence and policy responses.
The review also highlights the pressures facing climate journalism. Advertising revenue has shifted from traditional media towards major technology platforms, weakening the financial position of established news organisations. Meanwhile, social-media platforms may give less prominence to posts containing links that take users away from their services.
This creates particular risks for regions where independent journalism and public-service media are already under financial pressure, the researchers argue.
For the environmental sector, the researchers’ conclusion is therefore less a case for abandoning social media than for using it more strategically. Climate organisations may need to adapt their communication approaches to increasingly fragmented platforms and audiences, while continuing to support independent journalism and other channels capable of reaching people beyond the already engaged.
The full report can be read here.
Photo: Igor Omilaev