European Climate Obstructionist Think Tanks: A Deep Dive into Their Digital Communication Strategies on X (Formerly Twitter)
The influence of think tanks in shaping public policy and public opinion is undeniable. These organizations, often composed of intellectuals and analysts with political connections, conduct research and engage in strategic communication to influence public discourse and the political agenda. While traditionally focused on interacting with public institutions, they increasingly leverage digital platforms to disseminate their analyses and shape public narratives. This article investigates the digital communication strategies of European think tanks that obstruct climate action, focusing specifically on their activities on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter).
Climate change has become a focal point for these organizations, with many actively working to delay or obstruct climate action. Conservative advocacy tanks and corporations, often driven by ideological and economic interests, fund think tanks to lobby against climate policies. This aligns with the concept of "climate obstructionism," which encompasses the diverse array of actors working to undermine climate action. Their tactics often involve disseminating disinformation and discrediting climate activists and proposed solutions. While outright climate denial exists, the dominant strategy involves questioning the efficacy of proposed solutions and casting doubt on the scientific consensus.
Think tanks often cloak their arguments in scientific rhetoric to gain legitimacy. Leveraging their perceived expertise, they craft and disseminate messages that contribute to climate obstructionism. Under the guise of scientific inquiry, they promote inaction by questioning the severity and anthropogenic nature of climate change. This often involves using disinformation tactics to discredit climate science and activism. Social media platforms like X have become fertile ground for the spread of such disinformation, amplifying these narratives and contributing to ideological polarization.
Social media’s role in the climate change debate is significant. X, in particular, has emerged as a key platform for dialogue and debate between climate activists and their opponents. Studies suggest that some organizations utilize X to challenge environmental policies and contribute to polarization. Research also indicates that climate-denying content tends to generate high engagement on social media. These posts often downplay the role of human activity in climate change or frame it as a natural cycle.
While the activities of these obstructionist think tanks have been extensively studied in the United States, less research has focused on their European counterparts. Existing studies primarily examine their structural dynamics and networking on social platforms or analyze their general communication practices through reports and documents. This study addresses this gap by exploring the specific digital communication tactics employed by European climate obstructionist think tanks on X. The research seeks to answer three key questions: 1) What are the dominant themes and discursive lines in their tweets? 2) How do they use hyperlinks to supplement their content? and 3) What is the reach and engagement of their climate-related tweets?
The study employed a mixed-methods longitudinal analysis, focusing on twelve influential European think tanks known for their opposition to climate action. Data was collected using web scraping tools in R, extracting over 96,000 tweets. After filtering for relevance to climate and environmental topics using a set of 50 keywords, the final sample consisted of 803 original tweets. Data analysis was conducted in three phases: 1) Qualitative content analysis using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to identify five overarching thematic areas and Nvivo software to pinpoint recurring discursive lines; 2) Quantification and classification of hyperlinks according to predefined categories; and 3) Statistical analysis of tweet reach and engagement metrics using R and visualization with Flourish.
The results revealed a strong focus on climate-related topics among the sampled think tanks. Five main thematic areas emerged: market dynamics and economic impact of climate policies; political and ideological perspectives on climate change; technological solutions for environmental problems; scientific viewpoints challenging climate consensus; and a miscellaneous category. Most tweets concentrated on economic concerns related to climate policies, followed by framing the issue through political and ideological lenses.
A key finding was the prevalent use of organizational hyperlinks, primarily redirecting users to the think tank’s own website. This suggests a strategy of self-promotion and reinforcement of their narratives within their own ecosystem, rather than linking to external scientific evidence. The analysis of engagement metrics revealed that tweets with political and ideological framing generated the highest levels of interaction, suggesting these messages effectively resonate with and polarize audiences.
The study contributes to a deeper understanding of how European climate obstructionist think tanks utilize digital communication strategies to shape public discourse. It reveals their thematic focuses, their strategic use of hyperlinks, and the types of messages that generate the most engagement. While the study provides valuable insights, it acknowledges limitations, including its focus on a single social media platform and the lack of in-depth qualitative analysis of user interactions. Future research could expand to other platforms, delve deeper into audience engagement, and explore the potential for coordinated activity among these think tanks. Overall, this research underscores the importance of critically examining the online activities of these organizations and their influence on public opinion and policy discussions related to climate change.