Social media in climate change communication: State of the field,new developments and the emergence of generative AI

Abstract

Social media have transformed climate change communication and become central for sharing information, facilitating dialogue, and driving mobilization. Accordingly, research on the topic has grown. The article discusses recent yet under-researched developments regarding social media in climate change communication: from their detrimental impact on climate journalism, the pros and cons of the short-video revolution and the emergence of “dark platforms” over climate-related initiatives by social media and the role of influencers to new forms of individual engagement. It concludes with reflections on the role of generative AI in climate change communication.

Keywords

climate change climate change communication social media artificial intelligence communication science

The emergence of social media—from social networking sites like Facebook to media-sharing platforms like YouTube, TikTok or Instagram to discussion forums like Reddit—has transformed public communication and communication about climate change: Social media have become central for sharing climate-related information, facilitating dialogue, and driving mobilization, thus influencing key aspects of climate change communication (Tandoc and Eng, 2017).

This comes with opportunities: Social media are widely used sources of information about climate change, particularly among younger audiences (Andi, 2020). They enable individuals and organizations to generate their own content and interact directly with large audiences, bypassing traditional gatekeepers such as journalists (Bruns, 2021). They offer new opportunities for cross-platform dissemination and engagement, potentially making climate change more accessible and prominent in everyday conversations (Pearce et al., 2019). And they can further grassroots mobilization, as demonstrated by the “Fridays for Future” movement (Vu et al., 2023).

However, social media also presents challenges: The algorithmic curation of content on social media can introduce bias towards certain actors or positions (Bozdag, 2013). Their networking and recommendation structures can fragment, even polarize communication and give rise to echo chambers, where individuals are primarily exposed to viewpoints reinforcing pre-existing beliefs (Williams et al., 2016). They can be used to spread dis- and misinformation effectively and at scale (Cinelli et al., 2022). These and other issues can impede climate-related action and effective policymaking (Schäfer, 2020).

Analyzing social media in climate change communication

Analyzing the impact of social media on climate change communication is therefore important. Research on the issue has indeed expanded over the past decade—albeit scholars still focus(ed) mostly on legacy media (Agin and Karlsson, 2021; Comfort and Park, 2018), and albeit existing social media analyses were strongly skewed towards Twitter (now X, Pearce et al., 2019).

Initially, scholars focused on social media’s role in disseminating climate-related information (Tandoc and Eng, 2017), and on their reach (Pearce et al., 2019), use and effects among citizens (Klinger and Metag, 2021). Research evolved to address strategic organizational social media communication on climate change as well as activism (Tandoc and Eng, 2017). Furthermore, scholars analyzed issues of polarization (Kubin and Von Sikorski, 2021), echo chambers (e.g., Falkenberg et al., 2022), and the spread of misinformation and countermeasures like factchecking (Vu et al., 2023) or inoculation (van der Linden et al., 2017).

These research strands remain relevant and will continue. After all, many questions are still unresolved, and most of the respective research stems from Anglophone countries like the US, UK or Australia (Agin and Karlsson, 2021) and is not easily applicable to African, Asian, Latin American or European countries where social media usage and landscapes can differ (Matassi and Boczkowski, 2021).

Current developments and new topics for the research field

Additionally, social media landscapes are constantly evolving. Entire platforms like Meta's Threads have emerged, for example, while others, such as Vine, have shut down or changed character, like Twitter. Many social media have expanded to offer more communicative functions and adopted successful elements from other platforms, like video formats or feedback options (Kaye et al., 2022). Practices regarding content recommendation and moderation are changing continuously (Gillespie, 2022). On the level of individual users, time spent on social media is still increasing in many regions due to rising mobile connectivity, changing demographics, and platform innovations (DataReportal, 2023).

Changes like these—from the macro-level of entire communication systems over the meso-level of specific platforms to the individual micro-level—affect climate change communication and deserve scholarly attention. Some of the most relevant developments on the macro-level of entire communication landscapes are:
- Social Media continue to put pressure on traditional journalism: The rise and platformization of social media have significantly affected legacy media, altering distribution channels and audience behavior, and redirecting advertising revenue toward social media platforms (Franklin, 2014). While there are exceptions like the British Guardian, which continues to invest in climate reporting through philanthropic and reader funding, journalism is deteriorating in many countries, and “climate journalism” is also operating under strenuous conditions (Schäfer and Painter, 2021). The situation may be further worsened by platforms blocking news content in certain markets to avoid paying royalties to media outlets (like Meta's news bans in Australia and Canada or Google's in Spain; cf. Waatainen, 2024). Additionally, subtle developments, such as the downgrading of posts that include external links or the confinement of external links within platform ecosystems, are impactful and deserve close attention as they may further pressure (climate) journalism and affect traditional communication infrastructures more broadly.

- The short-video revolution is one of the most significant recent shifts in global social media landscapes. Initially popularized by Chinese app Douyin and its Western counterpart TikTok (Zeng et al., 2021), short video formats have since been adopted by platforms like Instagram (Reels), YouTube (Shorts), LinkedIn, and Twitter. Driven by highly personalized algorithms, they effectively engage users—especially younger audiences—by offering quick, entertaining, memefied and often viral content (Zulli and Zulli, 2022). TikTok, in particular, stands out by providing intuitive tools for video editing and production, allowing users to create, remix, and share climate-related messages easily. This has transformed climate change communication by broadening the conversation, amplifying voices outside institutional channels, raising awareness and sparking conversations. Short videos can create engaging narratives that convey complex issues in digestible formats, but their brevity also poses challenges, potentially oversimplifying issues or leading to disinformation. More research is needed here (Zeng et al., 2021).

- From platform-level to system-level echo chambers? The fragmentation and potential polarization on social media has been a focus of scholarship on climate change communication for some time, with early studies like Williams et al. (2016) identifying echo chambers on Twitter. However, the social media landscape has since evolved. One aspect is that platforms have put more effort into fact-checking (Vu et al., 2023) and deplatforming problematic content, including on climate change (Mekacher et al., 2023; Rauchfleisch and Kaiser, 2021). But this has not only triggered a backlash in the traditional platform landscape, which has, e.g., contributed to Twitter's reorientation under Elon Musk. It has also given rise to alternative or “dark platforms,” that are less regulated and moderated and have become havens for content and creators not tolerated on mainstream platforms. These platforms, such as BitChute, Gab and 8kun, attract deplatformed individuals and create parallel digital ecosystems that amplify controversial content (Zeng and Schäfer, 2021). As a result, the communication landscape may shift from fragmentation within platforms to fragmentation between platforms—i.e., from platform-level echo chambers to system-level echo chambers. Cross-platform research is essential to better understand and potentially address these dynamics (Schäfer and Hase, 2023).
On the platform level, relevant developments deserving scholarly attention are, for example:
- The emergence of climate-related initiatives by social media: In addition to fact-checking efforts and deplatforming problematic content, many social media platforms have launched climate-focused initiatives themselves (Yıldırım, 2021). Facebook's 2020 Climate Science Center, for example, offers users information from sources like the IPCC, aiming to combat climate disinformation. YouTube introduced fact-check panels for climate-related videos and “information panels” that link users to verified sources during relevant searches. Instagram partnered with climate influencers such as @sustainablychic and organizations like @earthrise.studio to create sustainability guides, providing tips for reducing waste and living sustainably. Pinterest, in its 2021 “Pinterest for Climate Action” campaign, introduced curated boards offering eco-friendly living tips and DIY projects. Snapchat offered “Climate Awareness Filters,” using augmented reality to visualize the effects of climate change in users’ surroundings. Scholarship on these platform-specific initiatives and their impact is scarce, however, as scholars have focused on activism on rather than by platforms—which makes analyses of the latter a highly relevant and promising avenue for future research.

- The rise of localized, hyper-niche climate communities: Such communities have emerged on social media, engaging on specific and local aspects of climate change, and often centering around climate-related action (Skinner et al., 2023). They focus on climate justice and indigenous activism, for example, such as the #landback initiatives which amplify regional voices and highlight the disproportionate effects of climate change on indigenous lands across platforms like Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok. Local Climate Action Networks, like 350.org, operate worldwide with local chapters—such as 350 Silicon Valley's Facebook page—mobilizing residents to target regional policies and corporate actions. Renewable energy DIY groups, like Reddit's r/DIYsolar, assist users in creating small-scale renewable energy solutions, while regional eco-tourism and conservation groups promote climate-conscious travel. Again, however, scholarship on these communities is scarce and often focused on select example like sustainable fashion (Jacobson and Harrison, 2022).

- The continuing emergence of influencers as intermediaries of climate change communication: Social media have diminished the importance of traditional gatekeepers of information like journalists (Bruns, 2021). In their place, social media influencers have become key voices in climate change communication. With large, engaged followings, influencers can effectively spread climate-related messages by blending education, entertainment, and emotional appeals to motivate action. One of the most prominent figures is Greta Thunberg, who has amassed millions of followers through activism and calls for political change (Mede and Schroeder, 2024). Other examples include filmmaker Jack Harries, who shares climate documentaries with his 3.7 million YouTube subscribers, environmentalist drag queen Pattie Gonia, who uses humor to engage nearly 500,000 Instagram followers, and TikToker @thatcurlytopp, who couples climate information with sustainable fashion (Haastrup, 2023). While influencers can amplify individual action and grassroots movement, however, they may also lack topical expertise, raising concerns about misinformation. Despite their growing influence, research on climate influencers remains limited, however, and further analysis is needed (Schmuck, 2021).
On the micro-level of individuals, relevant developments are:
- Social media afford new forms of content dissemination and individual engagement that merit scholarly attention. For example, TikTok's affordances such as visibility, editability, and association enable users to express concern about climate change through videos that blend humor, satire, and sincerity and are partly very widely viewed (Basch et al., 2022). These videos tap into affective contagion, creating a sense of shared emotion and urgency even if messages are sometimes imprecise or ambivalent (Hautea et al., 2021)—a novel style of engagement that, while lacking scientific rigor, can play a role in disseminating climate-related content to broader audiences and fostering collective sentiment and informal activism (Haastrup, 2023).

- Social media content tailored to specific population segments: Research across various countries has shown that population segments have different attitudes towards climate change (Ayers et al., 2024; Detenber and Rosenthal, 2020; Schäfer, 2023). Many of these studies do not include the role of social media (Metag and Schäfer, 2018), but those that do suggest that segments engage with social media differently, and that tailored social media strategies could be valuable to target these groups more effectively (Klinger et al., 2022). Segments who experience “issue fatigue” and have begun to avoid the topic, for example, could be more effectively reached through engaging and entertaining social media content (Diehl et al., 2021). Particularly in light of observed cross-national variations, further research is needed to explore social media strategies that are both country- and population-specific.

Look ahead: Climate change communication on social media in the age of AI

Generative AI (GenAI), which generates “original, human-like responses to user prompts based on supervised and reinforcement learning techniques” (Schäfer and Hase, 2023), will fundamentally transform how climate change communication is produced, disseminated, and consumed. On social media, GenAI's capacity to compose engaging multimodal posts, deliver fast, individualized information and engage in dialogue with users makes it a powerful tool for climate change communication (Bulian et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2024). It's ability to counter disinformation (Costello et al., 2024), if further substantiated, could add to its value.

But GenAI will likely also catalyze existing challenges in climate change communication. The volume of AI-generated content could overwhelm users with information of varying or even shrinking quality (Nerlich, 2023). Users could find it more difficult to assess the credibility of sources and accounts (Schäfer et al., 2025), especially in communication environments fraught with disinformation. And GenAI will add new forms of misinformation, such as deepfakes impersonating people in highly realistic ways (Doss et al., 2023). And conservatives and skeptics have already criticized GenAI tools like ChatGPT as being too liberal, citing human interference with the training data and identifying GenAI as a new target for political attack (Grossmann and Hopkins, 2024).

Finally, it is essential to acknowledge GenAI's environmental costs. The computational power required for AI models adds to the already high energy demands of digital communication and to concerns about the sustainability of GenAI (Berthelot et al., 2024)—highlighting a critical tension between technological advancement and environmental responsibility.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Mike S. Schäfer is a Full Professor of Science Communication. His work focuses on public communication and public attitudes about science, climate change and AI.

References

Agin

Karlsson

(2021) Mapping the field of climate change communication 1993–2018: Geographically biased, theoretically narrow, and methodologically limited. Environmental Communication 15(4): 431–446.

Andi

(2020) How people access news about climate change. In: Newman

, et al. (eds) Reuters Digital News Report. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 52–55.

Ayers

Marlon

Ballew

, et al. (2024) Changes in global warming’s six Americas: An analysis of repeat respondents. Climatic Change 177(6): 96.

Basch

Yalamanchili

Fera

(2022) #Climate change on TikTok: A content analysis of videos. Journal of Community Health 47: 1–5.

Berthelot

Caron

Jay

, et al. (2024) Estimating the environmental impact of generative-AI services using an LCA-based methodology. Procedia CIRP 122: 707–712.

Bozdag

(2013) Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and Information Technology 15: 209–227.

Bruns

(2021) Gatewatching and news curation. In Routledge Companion to Political Journalism. New York: Routledge, 252–261.

Bulian

Schäfer

Amini

, et al. (2023) Assessing large language models on climate information. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02932.

Chen

Shao

Burapacheep

, et al. (2024) Conversational AI and equity through assessing GPT-3’s communication with diverse social groups on contentious topics. Scientific Reports 14(1): 1561.

10.

Cinelli

Etta

Avalle

, et al. (2022) Conspiracy theories and social media platforms. Current Opinion in Psychology 47: 101407.

11.

Comfort

Park

(2018) On the field of environmental communication: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature. Environmental Communication 12(7): 862–875.

12.

Costello

Pennycook

Rand

(2024) Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI. Science 385(6714): eadq1814.

13.

DataReportal (2023) Digital 2023: Global overview report. We are social & meltwater. Online under. Available at: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-global-overview-report.

14.

Detenber

Rosenthal

(2020) Climate change audience segmentation: An international review. In: Research Handbook on Communicating Climate Change. Cheltenham: Elgar, 214–229.

15.

Diehl

Huber

Gil de Zúñiga

, et al. (2021) Social media and beliefs about climate change: A cross-national analysis of news use, political ideology, and trust in science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 33(2): 197–213.

16.

Doss

Mondschein

Shu

, et al. (2023) Deepfakes and scientific knowledge dissemination. Scientific Reports 13(1): 13429.

17.

Falkenberg

Galeazzi

Torricelli

, et al. (2022) Growing polarization around climate change on social media. Nature Climate Change 12(12): 1114–1121.

18.

Franklin

(2014) The future of journalism: In an age of digital media and economic uncertainty. Journalism Studies 15(5): 481–499.

19.

Gillespie

(2022) Do not recommend? Reduction as a form of content moderation. Social Media+ Society 8(3): 20563051221117552.

20.

Grossmann

Hopkins

(2024) Polarized by Degrees. New York: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Haastrup

(2023) Having fun saving the climate: The climate influencer, emotional labour, and storytelling as counter-narrative on tiktok. Persona Studies 9(1): 36–51.

22.

Hautea

Parks

Takahashi

, et al. (2021) Showing they care (or don’t): Affective publics and ambivalent climate activism on TikTok. Social media and Society 7(2): 20563051211012344.

23.

Jacobson

Harrison

(2022) Sustainable fashion social media influencers and content creation calibration. International Journal of Advertising 41(1): 150–177.

24.

Kaye

DBV

Zeng

Wikstrom

(2022) TikTok: Creativity and Culture in Short Video. London: John Wiley & Sons.

25.

Klinger

Metag

(2021) Media effects in the context of environmental issues. In: The Handbook of International Trends in Environmental Communication. New York: Routledge, 31–49.

26.

Klinger

Metag

Schäfer

(2022) Global warming's five Germanys-revisited and framed in an international context. Environmental Communication 16(8): 1108–1126.

27.

Kubin

Von Sikorski

(2021) The role of (social) media in political polarization: A systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association 45(3): 188–206.

28.

Matassi

Boczkowski

(2021) An agenda for comparative social media studies: The value of understanding practices from cross-national, cross-media, and cross-platform perspectives. International Journal of Communication 15: 22.

29.

Mede

Schroeder

(2024) The “Greta effect” on social media: A systematic review of research on Thunberg’s impact on digital climate change communication. Environmental Communication 18: 1–18.

30.

Mekacher

Falkenberg

Baronchelli

(2023) The systemic impact of deplatforming on social media. PNAS nexus 2(11): pgad346.

31.

Metag

Schäfer

(2018) Audience segments in environmental and science communication: Recent findings and future perspectives. Environmental Communication 12(8): 995–1004.

32.

Nerlich

(2023). Artificial intelligence: Education and entertainment. Making Science Public, 6 January. https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2023/01/06/artificial-intelligence-education-and-entertainment (04 April 2023).

33.

Pearce

Niederer

Özkula

, et al. (2019) The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries. WIREs Climate Change 10(2): e569.

34.

Rauchfleisch

Kaiser

(2021) Deplatforming the far-right: An analysis of YouTube and BitChute. Available at SSRN 3867818.

35.

Schäfer

(2020) Are social Media making constructive climate policymaking harder? Yes: Social Media fragment, polarize and worsen climate change communication. In: Hulme

(eds) Contemporary Climate Change Debates - A Student Primer. Abingdon: Earthscan Routledge, 222–227.

36.

Schäfer

(2023) The Notorious GPT: science communication in the age of artificial intelligence. JCOM - Journal of Science Communication 22(2): 1–15.

37.

Schäfer

Hase

(2023) Computational methods for the analysis of climate change communication: Towards an integrative and reflexive approach. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 14(2): e806.

38.

Schäfer

Kremer

Mede

, et al. (2025) Trust in Science, Trust in ChatGPT? How Germans think about Generative AI as a Source in Science Communication. JCOM - Journal of Science Communication 27. Forthcoming.

39.

Schäfer

Painter

(2021) Climate journalism in a changing media ecosystem: Assessing the production of climate change-related news around the world. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 12(1): e675.

40.

Schmuck

(2021) Social media influencers and environmental communication. In: The Handbook of International Trends in Environmental Communication. New York: Routledge, 373–387.

41.

Skinner

Le Busque

Dorrian

, et al. (2023) #Sustainablefashion on Instagram: A content and network analysis of user-generated posts. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 22(5): 1096–1111.

42.

Tandoc

Eng

(2017) Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and Other Social Media Platforms. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. London: Oxford University Press, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.361

43.

van der Linden

Leiserowitz

Rosenthal

, et al. (2017) Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges 1(2): 1600008.

44.

Baines

Nguyen

(2023) Fact-checking climate change: An analysis of claims and verification practices by fact-checkers in four countries. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 100(2): 286–307.

45.

Waatainen

(2024) The News about the News: Exploring the Impact of Meta’s Social Media News Ban on the Quality and Quantity of Online News in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

46.

Williams

HTP

Mcmurray

Kurz

, et al. (2016) Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change 32(2015): 126–138.

47.

Yıldırım

(2021) Do green women influencers spur sustainable consumption patterns? Descriptive evidences from social media influencers. Ecofeminism and Climate Change 2(4): 198–210.

48.

Zeng

Abidin

Schäfer

(2021) Research perspectives on TikTok & its legacy apps| research perspectives on TikTok and its legacy apps—introduction. International Journal of Communication 15: 12.

49.

Zeng

Schäfer

(2021) Conceptualizing “dark platforms”. COVID-19-related conspiracy theories on 8kun and Gab. Digital Journalism 9(9): 1321–1343.

50.

Zulli

(2022) Extending the internet meme: Conceptualizing technological mimesis and imitation publics on the TikTok platform. New Media & Society 24(8): 1872–1890.