Climate delay discourses present in global mainstream television coverage of the IPCC’s 2021 report
Journal article, 2023

Recent scholarship suggests that groups who oppose acting on climate change have shifted their emphasis from attacking the credibility of climate science itself to questioning the policies intended to address it, a position often called ‘response skepticism’. As television is the platform most used by audiences around the world to receive climate information, we examine 30 news programmes on 20 channels in Australia, Brazil, Sweden, the UK and USA which included coverage of the 2021 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the Physical Science. Using manual quantitative content analysis, we find that skepticism about the science of climate change is still prevalent in channels that we have classified as ‘right-wing’, but largely absent from channels classified as ‘mainstream’. Forms of response skepticism are particularly common in ‘right-wing’ channels, but also present in some ‘mainstream’ coverage. Two of the most prominent discourses question the perceived economic costs of taking action and the personal sacrifices involved. We explore the implications of our findings for future research and climate communication.

Author

James Painter

University of Oxford

Joshua Ettinger

University of Oxford

David Holmes

Monash University

Loredana Loy

Cornell University

Janaina Pinto

State University of Rio de Janeiro

Lucy Richardson

Monash University

Laura Thomas-Walters

University of Stirling

Kjell Vowles

Chalmers, Technology Management and Economics, Science, Technology and Society

Rachel Wetts

Brown University

Communications Earth and Environment

26624435 (eISSN)

Vol. 4 1 118

Why is not climate science taken for real? Studies of climate change denialism

Formas (2018-00417), 2018-07-01 -- 2021-12-31.

Swedish Energy Agency (46178-1), 2018-07-01 -- 2021-12-31.

Subject Categories

Social Sciences Interdisciplinary

Media Studies

Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalization Studies)

DOI

10.1038/s43247-023-00760-2

More information

Latest update

1/3/2024 9