Skip to content
1981
image of The climate-change bubbles thesis: Rethinking communication in a climate crisis

Abstract

As unwelcome news on climate change temperatures continues, recent narratives have dampened any collective optimism on this problem being the most pressing one to address. Inspired by calls in the climate communication space to do everything we can and to pivot our ideas away from doom and gloom, this article considers a new concept to better understand and progress communication during the climate crisis: the climate-change bubbles thesis. It synthesizes three important ideas: Timothy Morton’s ‘hyperobjects’, where things of a certain scale can be difficult to comprehend; Julia Leyda’s ‘climate unconscious’, which suggests a climate lens can be applied to many forms of media and culture not ostensibly climate change and, finally, Sally Weintrobe’s ‘climate bubble’ idea that she uses to critique the communication spaces perpetuated by bad actors in the petrochemical era. This contribution further examines the nature of the term ‘bubble’, its etymology, discourse and current use to frame problematic information in the digital age. Climate change is referred to as a wicked problem because time is running out to make meaningful change. The climate-change bubble thesis argues that climate change is treated as a priority or the first problem. As such, everything can be contextualized with reference to the climate crisis via diverse types of climate-change bubbles: these are the differing perspectives from which people come to the climate crisis, whether they realize it or not. Just as Billy Bob Thorton’s Tommy Norris remarks in the 2024 TV show that fossil fuels are in everything humans interact with, it is in everything that we must start to see climate change if we are to make meaningful change.

© 2026 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jem_00143_1
2026-01-13
2026-04-17

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aicher, A., Minker, W., Kornmuller, D. and Ultes, S. (2023), ‘Self-imposed filter bubble model for argumentative dialogues’, CUI ‘23: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 19–21 July, New York: ACM Digital Library, pp. 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1145/3571884.3597131.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anon. (2024), personal communication at The Big Conversation: Sustainability and Mental Health event, Glasgow Caledonian University, 13 March.
  3. Andre, P., Boneva, T., Chopra, F. and Falk, A. (2024), ‘Globally representative evidence of the actual and perceived support for climate action’, Nature Climate Change, 14, pp. 253–59, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01925-3.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnhart, R. K. (ed.) (2003), Chambers Dictionary of Etymology, New York: The H. W. Wilson Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bechmann, A. and Nielbo, K. L. (2018), ‘Are we exposed to the same “news” in the news feed? An empirical analysis of filter bubbles as information similarity for Danish Facebook users’, Digital Journalism, 6:8, pp. 990–1002, https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1510741.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Benegal, S. D. and Scruggs, L. A. (2018), ‘Correcting misinformation about climate change: The impact of partisanship in an experimental setting’, Climatic Change, 148:1&2, pp. 61–80, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2192-4.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bruns, A. (2019a), Are Filter Bubbles Real?, Cambridge: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bruns, A. (2019b), ‘Filter bubble’, Internet Policy Review, 8:4, pp. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1426.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bruns, A. (2022), ‘Echo chambers? Filter bubbles?: The misleading metaphors that obscure the real problem’, in P.-E. Marta and N.-V. Jose Manuel (eds), Hate Speech and Polarization in Participatory Society, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 33–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) (2024), ‘The new climate denial: How social media platforms and content producers profit by spreading new forms of climate denial’, Center for Countering Digital Hate, 16 January, https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CCDH-The-New-Climate-Denial_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 2 February 2024.
  11. Chatfield, T. (2022), Critical Thinking: Your Guide to Effective Argument, Successful Analysis and Independent Study, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Condon, M. (2022), ‘Market myopia’s climate bubble’, Utah Law Review, 1, pp. 63–126, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3782675.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dahlgren, P. M. (2021), ‘A critical review of filter bubbles and a comparison with selective exposure’, Nordicom Review, 42:1, pp. 15–33, https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0002.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Doni, F., Gasperini, A. and Soares, J. T. (2020), SDG13: Climate Action: Combatting Climate Change and Its Impacts, Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dundar, P. and Ranaivoson, H. (2022) ‘Science by YouTube: An analysis of YouTube’s recommendations on the climate change issue’, Observatorio (OBS*) Journal, 16:3, pp. 53–76, https://doi.org/10.15847/obsOBS16320222061.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fuchs, C. (2010), ‘Social networking sites and complex technology assessment’, International Journal of E-Politics, 1:3, pp. 19–38, https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-0966-2.ch007.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Geschke, D., Lorenz, J. and Holtz, P. (2019), ‘The triple-filter bubble: Using agent-based modelling to test a meta-theoretical framework for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 58, pp. 129–49, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12286.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hemment, D., Carlo, B. and Alfie, D. (2011), ‘Climate bubbles: Games to monitor urban climate’, Leonardo, 44:1, pp. 64–65, https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00097.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hook, L., Tauschinski, J., Stylianou, N., Schipani, A. and White, E. (2025), ‘Why the world cannot quit coal’, The Financial Times, 18 June, https://www.ft.com/content/f6cc8bbc-9e45-4062-b216-37875b75d3cc. Accessed 19 June 2025.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2018), IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5C, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf. Accessed 8 September 2025.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kerr, R. A. (2009), ‘Amid worrisome signs of warming, “Climate Fatigue” sets in’, Science, 326:5955, pp. 926–28, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.326.5955.926. Accessed 15 February 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Landman (2024, USA: Paramount+).
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S. and Auld, G. (2012), ‘Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change’, Policy Sciences, 45, pp. 123–52, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Leyda, J. (2023), Anthroposcreens: Cambridge Elements: Environmental Humanities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. McBeth, M. K., Lybecker, D. L. and Sargent, J. M. (2022), ‘Narrative empathy: A narrative policy framework study of working-class climate change narratives and narrators’, World Affairs, 185:3, pp. 471–99, https://doi.org/10.1177/00438200221107018.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. McCormick, M. (2024), ‘ExxonMobil and Chevron notch second-biggest annual profits in a decade’, The Financial Times, 2 February, https://www.ft.com/content/9a4f4609-1299-496b-8360-bb37b3480bc4. Accessed 2 February 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Mckay, D., Makri, S., Owyong, K. and Gutierrez-Lopez, M. (2022), ‘Turn and face the strange: Investigating filter bubble bursting information interactions’, CHIR ’22, Regensburg, Germany, 14–18 March, City Research Online, pp. 233–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. McKay, A. (2021), Don’t Look Up, USA and Canada: Netflix.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. McWhirter, A. (2022), ‘A scholarship of hope: Taking stock of UK screen industries via the lens of digital work over digital solutionism’, in P. Kääpä and H. Vaughan (eds), Film and Television Production in the Age of Climate Crisis: Towards a Greener Screen, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 181–205.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. McWhirter, A. (2024), Learning, Teaching and Social Media: A Generational Approach, Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. McWhirter, A. (2025), ‘Who’s afraid of the big bad lurker? Lurking, AI, and social media literacies’, Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Social Media: ECSM 2025, Porto, 22–23 May, ACI, pp. 169–76, https://doi.org/10.34190/ecsm.12.1.3368.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Media Bounty (2022), ‘Beyond the climate bubble: How to grow the market for products & services the world needs’, Media Bounty, https://mediabounty.com/beyond-the-climate-bubble/. Accessed 22 April 2024.
  34. Miller, A., Arndt, S., Engel, L. and Boot, N. (2021), ‘Nature conservation in a digitalized world: Echo chambers and filter bubbles’, Ecology and Society, 26:3, p. 11, https://doi.org/10.5751/es-12549-260311.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Morton, T. (2013), Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Munroe, W. (2023), ‘Echo chambers, polarization, and “Post-truth”: In search of a connection’, Philosophical Psychology, 37:8, pp. 2647–78, https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2023.2174426.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Nikolov, D., Oliveira, D. F. M., Flammini, A. and Menczer, F. (2015), ‘Measuring online social bubbles’, PeerJ Computer Science, 1:e38, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.38.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Nixon, R. (2011), Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Nolon, J. R. (2014), ‘Land use and climate change bubbles: Resilience, retreat, and due diligence’, William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 39:2, pp. 321–63, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1619&context=wmelpr. Accessed 2 February 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Pariser, E. (2011), The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You, London: Viking and Penguin Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Sunstein, C. R. (2001), Rebublic.com, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Talamanca, G. F. and Arfini, S. (2022), ‘Through the newsfeed glass: Rethinking filter bubbles and echo chambers’, Philosophy & Technology, 35:20, pp. 1–34, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00494-z.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Terren, L. and Borge, R. (2021), ‘Echo chambers on social media: A systematic review of the literature’, Review of Communication Research, 9, pp. 99–18, https://doi.org/10.12840/ISSN.2255-4165.028.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Wearealbert (2024), ‘Editorial tool’, https://wearealbert.org/climate-content/tool/continuing-drama/. Accessed 29 November 2024.
  45. Weintrobe, S. (2020), ‘Moral injury, the culture of uncase and the climate bubble’, Journal of Social Work Practice, 34:4, pp. 351–62, https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2020.1844167.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Williams, H. T. P., McMurray, J. R., Kurz, T. and Lambert, F. H. (2015), ‘Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change’, Global Environmental Change, 32, pp. 126–38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Wray, B. (2022), Generation Dread: Finding Purpose in an Age of Climate Crisis, Toronto: Penguin Random House.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Yale Climate Connections (YCC) (2025), ‘Eight of the top 10 online shows are spreading climate misinformation’, Yale Climate Connections, 21 April, https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/04/eight-of-the-top-10-online-shows-are-spreading-climate-misinformation/. Accessed 9 June 2025.
/content/journals/10.1386/jem_00143_1
Loading
The climate-change bubbles thesis: Rethinking communication in a climate crisis
Intellect ; https://doi.org/10.1386/jem_00143_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jem_00143_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jem_00143_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keywords: Landman ; bubble discourse ; global warming ; the first problem ; hyperobjects ; climate unconscious ; climate bubble

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test