Revista de comunicación política iberoamericana

Núm. 66 (2026): Comunicación política ante el cambio climático
Secciones monográficas

Frames and Counter-Frames of Meaning in Climate Change: Between Public Perception and Political Propaganda

PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56151/maspoderlocal.361
Michele Di Salvo
CrossMedia Labs

Palabras clave

  • framing,
  • environmental communication,
  • environmental journalism,
  • environmental education,
  • polarisation,
  • misinformation,
  • emotions,
  • climate change
  • Climate change, Framing theory, Environmental communication, Polarisation, Narrative, George Lakoff, Misinformation, Public perception, Media.

Cómo citar

Di Salvo, M. (2026). Frames and Counter-Frames of Meaning in Climate Change: Between Public Perception and Political Propaganda. Más Poder Local, (66), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.56151/maspoderlocal.361

Derechos de autor 2026 Del autor o autores

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.

Resumen

Objectives: This article critically examines how frames and counter-frames organise political and media communication about climate change, with particular attention to frame production, media and platform circulation, reception by polarised audiences, and contributions from environmental journalism and environmental education. Methodology: The study uses a structured critical narrative review of peer-reviewed scholarship, combining foundational works with recent studies published mainly between 2023 and 2025. Searches used combinations of climate change, framing, environmental communication, environmental journalism, climate education, polarization, misinformation, emotions, and solutions journalism, together with DOI metadata and publisher pages. Results: The literature indicates that climate framing cannot be reduced to a Lakoffian account or to a simple opposition between information and emotion. Journalistic practices, political identities, platform logics, environmental education, responsibility attribution, and efficacy beliefs all shape interpretation and engagement. Conclusions: Rigorous climate communication should combine scientific evidence, psychological and geographic proximity, frame plurality, transparency about interests, and credible responses, while avoiding both paralysing catastrophism and overly moralising or reductive narratives.

PDF

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

  1. Aronoff, K., Battistoni, A., Cohen, D. A. & Riofrancos, T. (2019): A planet to win: Why we need a Green New Deal. Verso.
  2. Boykoff, M. T. & Boykoff, J. M. (2004): «Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press». Global Environmental Change, 14(2): 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
  3. Chihu Amparán, A. (2023): «El framing del ritual político (Las mañaneras)». Revista Más Poder Local, 53: 125–144. https://doi.org/10.56151/maspoderlocal.144
  4. Entman, R. M. (1993): «Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm». Journal of Communication, 43(4): 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
  5. Guenther, L., Jörges, S., Mahl, D. & Brüggemann, M. (2024): «Framing as a bridging concept for climate change communication: A systematic review based on 25 years of literature». Communication Research, 51(4): 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221137165
  6. Hajj-Hassan, M., Chaker, R. & Cederqvist, A.-M. (2024): «Environmental education: A systematic review on the use of digital tools for fostering sustainability awareness». Sustainability, 16(9): 3733. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093733
  7. Huang, J. & Guo, H. (2024): «When a bleak future comes closer: Interaction effects of emotion and temporal distance framing in climate change communication». BMC Psychology, 12: 677. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02183-w
  8. IPCC (2022): Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844
  9. Kahan, D. M. (2012): «Why we are poles apart on climate change». Nature, 488: 255. https://doi.org/10.1038/488255a
  10. Lakoff, G. (2004): Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
  11. Lakoff, G. (2010): «Why it matters how we frame the environment». Environmental Communication, 4(1): 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903529749
  12. Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K. & Gignac, G. E. (2013): «NASA faked the moon landing. Therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science». Psychological Science, 24(5): 622–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457686
  13. Lockwood, M. (2018): «Right-wing populism and the climate change agenda: Exploring the linkages». Environmental Politics, 27(4): 712–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1458411
  14. Maduneme, E. & Cohen, S. A. (2024): «Solutions journalism stories boosts pro-environmental behavioral intentions through positive affect and collective efficacy beliefs». Environment and Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165241286874
  15. Maniates, M. F. (2001): «Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world?». Global Environmental Politics, 1(3): 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638001316881395
  16. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. (2011): «The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010». The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2): 155–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
  17. Moser, S. C. (2010): «Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions». WIREs Climate Change, 1(1): 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.11
  18. Nicolosi, E., Medina, R., Brewer, S., Vorkink, M. & Allred, A. (2025): «The new denial: Climate solution misinformation on social media». Global Sustainability, 8: e31. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2025.10016
  19. Nisbet, M. C. (2009): «Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement». Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2): 12–23. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23
  20. O’Neill, S. & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009): «‘Fear won’t do it’: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations». Science Communication, 30(3): 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201
  21. O’Neill, S., Williams, H. T. P., Kurz, T., Wiersma, B. & Boykoff, M. (2015): «Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report». Nature Climate Change, 5(4): 380–385. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2535
  22. Olsen, E. K., Lawson, D. F., McClain, L. R. & Plummer, J. D. (2024): «Heads, hearts, and hands: A systematic review of empirical studies about eco/climate anxiety and environmental education». Environmental Education Research, 30(12): 2131–2158. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2315572
  23. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. (2010): Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press.
  24. Schön, D. A. & Rein, M. (1994): Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books.
  25. Shove, E. (2010): «Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change». Environment and Planning A, 42(6): 1273–1285. https://doi.org/10.1068/a42282
  26. Slimovich, A. (2024): «La comunicación gubernamental en la Argentina. La emoción y la razón en los spots de Alberto Fernández». Revista Más Poder Local, 57: 8–29. https://doi.org/10.56151/maspoderlocal.234
  27. Stevis, D.. & Felli, R. (2020): «Planetary just transition? How inclusive and how just?». Earth System Governance, 6: 100065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100065
  28. Storani, S., Falkenberg, M., Quattrociocchi, W. & Cinelli, M. (2025): «Relative engagement with sources of climate misinformation is growing across social media platforms». Scientific Reports, 15: 18629. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-03082-9
  29. Thier, K. & Wu, X. (2025): «Framing climate solutions: An exploratory quantitative content analysis». Environmental Communication, 19(3): 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2024.2396978
  30. Whyte, K. P. (2018): «Indigenous science (fiction) for the Anthropocene: Ancestral dystopias and fantasies of climate change crises». Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(1–2): 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618777621
  31. Williams, H. T. P., McMurray, J. R., Kurz, T. & Lambert, F. H. (2015): «Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change». Global Environmental Change, 32: 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006