The COP30 gives the opportunity to reflect on climate disinformation, as President Lula has put it on the agenda. This is a public admission that false news is shaping outcomes at every level.
This could appear paradoxical, especially in Western societies, where research shows that support for climate action is actually broad (even in the US). However, it is often drowned out by other news, and this can feed a certain pessimism. People think others care less than they do, and the gap twists perception. While the will to act may exist, it gets buried under stories that claim the opposite. This could explain why, in France, the share of people who believe the climate crisis will remain manageable dropped from 66% to 56% since 2016.
In this pessimistic context, how climate change is framed matters. The stories we repeat and the voices we elevate shape what people believe is possible, necessary, or worth fighting for. Headlines and social media feeds are filled with talk of green backlash. These accounts often focus on economic pain, cultural threat, or accusations of ecological nonsense, thus reducing the space for genuine political discussions about what actually works or could work.
This poses a challenge for the European Union, which put sustainability among its top priorities. The core question is simple. How do dominant narratives shape the room political actors have to move? If public authorities want to advance ambitious climate agendas, they need more than science or economics. They also need to understand the stories that set the boundaries of action. 
Why Do Climate Narratives Matter?
Climate narratives matter because they shape how people understand the world — and, by extension, what they believe should be done about it. They are not just stories or themes. Narratives are cognitive frameworks: models which help individuals interpret events, guide their actions, and coordinate with others. In the context of climate change, they play a crucial role in shaping public opinion, influencing behavior, and enabling — or obstructing — collective action.
The core problem is that their impact is often underestimated. When narratives are not properly analyzed or weighed, we ignore the power they carry and the uneven influence of certain ideas.
The Problem: Negative Narratives Thrive
There are many climate narratives circulating today, but they do not all spread with the same force. Research shows that traditional media (like radio, newspaper, and television) gives limited time to climate issues, with peaks during disasters. The imbalance is even sharper online. Digital platforms are now the main source of information for most people, yet their structure rewards the narratives most likely to trigger engagement or which align with the dominant beliefs. There is therefore nothing surprising about the fact that the most polarizing content is more likely to prevail online. They tap into fears or frustrations, even when they contradict scientific evidence. Studies show how Green Dystopia and ideas of green “delirium” dominate the informational space, simplifying the environmental debate around a binary cleavage between us and them, while more constructive narratives struggle to surface. France’s debate over ZFE (“Zones à Faibles Emissions”) is illustrative: while this issue highlighted problems in policy implementation, the question was treated as a rural-urban divide, thus diverting attention from how to adapt environmental policies to their context of implementation.
Again, these narratives do not spread because they are accurate––some are, in fact, false. They spread because they match existing worldviews, emotional triggers, and political identities. Their simplicity and constant repetition make them hard to correct and highly effective at shaping public discourse. They offer a clear explanation of events, even if it is misleading.
How Do Climate Narratives Matter?
Because climate narratives are rooted in deep social identities, they are difficult to challenge — and attractive to weaponize. This was evident in the United States, where right-wing think tanks crafted messages designed to undermine public trust in climate science. In recent years, corporate actors, political lobbies, and ideological movements have framed climate action as a threat. They describe green policies as economically harmful, socially unfair, authoritarian, or elitist, thus turning environmentalism into a battleground for cultural identity.
A striking example of this has been the Exxon Mobil Corp. Case in the United States, which showed how fossil fuel interests invested heavily in shaping narratives that delay climate legislation. This is not an isolated phenomenon. It is part of a broader ecosystem of misinformation that reshapes how people understand climate challenges.
Who Fuels Climate Misinformation — and Why
Misinformation is often amplified by actors with something to lose from stringent climate policies. However, the form climate denial can take is various, and can thus be more subtle. Rather than holding onto a complete denial of the climate change phenomena, denialists turn to a more strategic skepticism. Rather than contesting that climate change exists, they question its causes, deny the feasibility or fairness of solutions, or flood the informational space with ambiguity. One example is that of green energy, which is said to increase household energy bills. Genuine discussions are needed to consider how to develop sustainable European energy independence without penalizing the less fortunate. However, the proliferation of distorted narratives makes debate impossible by portraying renewable energy advocates as anti-social activists.
This shift is dangerous because it presents itself as common sense. It makes climate ambition look unrealistic while portraying resistance as rational. Claims that the Green Deal is too complex or that environmental regulation hurts ordinary people are part of this pattern, and are reinforced by the rise of right-wing and nationalist movements. Anti-ecological rhetoric has been shown to be robustly correlated with this branch of the political spectrum, which exploits the feeling of insecurity generated by global changes to present climate action as a threat to the individual (undermining their purchasing power, driving up prices, etc.). The discourse around the risks of ecological transition ties into broader narratives about the decline of great powers and echoes conservative tendencies to preserve traditional ways of life against new trends.
The result is a policy-making environment where climate action appears riskier than it is and inaction appears safer. Recent electoral drawbacks for green parties across Europe illustrate this trend, giving contradictory information about what is politically desired, and what is publicly acceptable.
Over time, narrative manipulation erodes trust in science and institutions. When disinformation reinforces existing beliefs or pairs with conspiracy thinking, it feeds a broader sense that progress is already too late. As pessimistic or skeptical narratives grow, they create a feedback loop. The more visible backlash becomes, the more policymakers fear political costs, the more action is softened or delayed, and the more backlash appears justified.
What Are Climate Narratives About?
Climate narratives are not abstract. They are tied to how public authorities frame and justify policy. Communication can determine a policy’s legitimacy, its perceived fairness, and its political survival.
The European Green Deal illustrates this. Its ambition is clear, yet it has struggled to secure public support. The issue is not only its goals but the way they have been communicated. When messaging is vague or overly technical, it creates a vacuum that polarizing narratives quickly fill.
A simple lesson emerges: Climate action cannot succeed without attention to the narratives that surround it.
From Policy to Narrative: Bridging the Gap
For climate policy to gain traction, it must connect with values people recognize as their own. Research from the Nodes project and other narrative studies suggests that building narrative bridges is key. These bridges highlight shared values across ideological divides and reduce polarization.
But communication alone is not enough. There are concrete policy levers that can improve the narrative environment. Research on countering climate denial shows the need to have a clear understanding of the kind of climate narratives which are dominant, as different narratives entail different communication strategies.
Grassroots groups, NGOs, and academic institutions have developed initiatives to address these issues, but they are rarely supported by national policy frameworks. As a result, effective storytelling remains fragmented, and misinformation outpaces meaningful communication.
Governments need to treat narrative integrity as part of climate governance. The European Union has a role to play in creating incentives for this shift. Climate action must be supported by a European climate communication strategy, with the same level of rigor, funding, and ambition as every other major pillar of the Green Deal.
