What the evidence shows

This peer-reviewed study examines how mainstream media across the Global North and Global South covered the IPCC's new Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) scenario framework, introduced in the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). The authors note that SSPs are inherently complex — combining assumptions about population, technology, economic growth, and policy choices — and that IPCC scientists themselves have identified communicating these scenarios as one of the most pressing challenges facing the panel.

Using a detailed 32-variable code book, the researchers manually analyzed 252 articles from ten major UK/US outlets (spanning tabloid, broadsheet, and broadcast formats across the political spectrum), Reuters, 28 African English-language titles, and five Indian outlets, published in the days immediately following each of the three AR6 Working Group report launches. The study addresses five research questions: whether media reference IPCC scenarios at all; what language journalists use to describe them; whether coverage presents a range of futures or resorts to binary "deadline" framing; whether scenarios are contested by skeptical voices; and whether uncertainty is accurately conveyed.

Key Findings

• The word "scenario" and the concept of multiple possible futures appeared in roughly half of articles covering the WGI report (48.5% and 55% respectively), but this dropped sharply to around a fifth for WGII and WGIII coverage (22% and 19.5%).

• Detailed explanations of how scenarios are calculated appeared in only 18 of 252 articles (7% of the total sample), and virtually none of these appeared outside specialist "explainer" pieces.

• There was no criticism or contestation of the scenarios themselves found anywhere in the 252-article sample, including a complete absence of organized skeptical or denialist voices challenging the scenarios' validity.

Stand out data points

• Softer "binary framing" (e.g., "now or never," "disappearing window") was more common and increased across the three reports — present in 15% of WGI articles, rising to 43% for WGII and 32% for WGIII coverage.

• 7%: the share of the entire 252-article sample that included any explanation — weak or detailed — of how IPCC scenarios or SSPs are actually calculated, with all but one of these appearing in WGI coverage alone.

• <10%: the proportion of articles using hard deadline/doomsday narratives (e.g., "12 years to act"), a figure the authors explicitly describe as "much less than we thought" given prior research on IPCC media coverage.

Examples of how Understories uses this research

• Actionability The authors' recommendation to emphasize "options we face" language (suggesting agency and choice) rather than deterministic framing directly supports scoring for messages that preserve audience agency.

• Emotional resonance Relevant via the binary-framing findings — the rise in "now or never"-style framing across WGII/WGIII suggests journalists reach for urgency-signaling language even when hard deadlines aren't used.

• Solution focus the paper's conclusion explicitly argues that embedding multiple-scenario thinking could shift climate communication away from fatalistic framing toward exploring "options for possible (better) futures."

• Beneficence The study's explicit goal is to help identify communication gaps so that both journalists and the IPCC can better inform public and policymaker understanding, directly supporting Understories' aim of improving climate communication effectiveness without sacrificing accuracy.

• Justice The study's inclusion of a substantial African media sample (28 titles, the largest single-country/region grouping analyzed) is a notable strength, and the finding that SSPs were not mentioned at all in this sample is an important equity-relevant data point about differential media resourcing for complex science communication across regions.

— non-exhaustive.

Key quote

On a path forward for more empowering climate communication: embedding scenarios and the concept of multiple possible futures into coverage "could help to change the narrative away from a doom-laden or tipping point narrative, to involving the public and stake holders more in the discussion and options for possible (better) futures."

© The Author(s) 2024. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

Last update: 1 September 2026

——

Want to stay ahead of the curve? Join the Reading List.

Fortnightly, I’ll share short explainers, key findings, and data points from selected reports as they go live, plus exclusive content.