Climate and biodiversity perceptions amid the European energy crisis: shifting social media narratives

Abstract

Public support for addressing the sustainability crisis is crucial for mainstreaming environmental issues into policymaking. Recently, escalating impacts of an energy crisis have sparked debates over European energy governance, influencing policymaking on climate and biodiversity goals. Understanding how public attention towards climate and biodiversity is mediated by social media during crises can provide insights into the processes of public opinion formation. We investigated the attention patterns, narrative shifts, and sentiment regarding climate and biodiversity concerning European energy governance on X (formerly Twitter), between 2021 and 2023. We employed the issue–attention cycle framework and combined quantitative methods with qualitative thematic analysis. We found limited attention on climate and biodiversity in European energy governance, suggesting low engagement with the interconnected dimensions of the crisis. Climate and biodiversity issues were mainly linked to energy governance in relation to the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Attention fluctuated over time following three waves of salient themes: the unfolding energy crisis, geopolitical instability, and socio-economic concerns. Geopolitical events elicited a sense of urgency for accelerating the energy transition. However, socio-economic events (high energy prices) aroused critical views towards the transition, reflecting emerging discourses against decarbonization in the EU. Limited attention to climate and biodiversity on social media may reinforce the perception that these issues are unrelated to energy governance, driving public support towards uncoordinated, even contradictory, sectorial policies. The construction of saliency around polarized framing on social media may push opinions against environmental policies on energy governance, challenging the reconciliation of environmental, economic, and social imperatives of sustainability.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-025-01639-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Climate andbiodiversity perceptions amidtheEuropean energy crisis:
shifting social media narratives
AnnaHausmann1,2,3 · TuomasVäisänen3,4· TuuliToivonen3,4· GonzaloCortés‑Capano2,5,6
Received: 20 May 2024 / Accepted: 14 January 2025 / Published online: 28 March 2025
© The Author(s) 2025
Abstract
Public support for addressing the sustainability crisis is crucial for mainstreaming environmental issues into policymaking.
Recently, escalating impacts of an energy crisis have sparked debates over European energy governance, influencing policy-
making on climate and biodiversity goals. Understanding how public attention towards climate and biodiversity is mediated
by social media during crises can provide insights into the processes of public opinion formation. We investigated the atten-
tion patterns, narrative shifts, and sentiment regarding climate and biodiversity concerning European energy governance on
X (formerly Twitter), between 2021 and 2023. We employed the issue–attention cycle framework and combined quantita-
tive methods with qualitative thematic analysis. We found limited attention on climate and biodiversity in European energy
governance, suggesting low engagement with the interconnected dimensions of the crisis. Climate and biodiversity issues
were mainly linked to energy governance in relation to the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Attention fluctuated
over time following three waves of salient themes: the unfolding energy crisis, geopolitical instability, and socio-economic
concerns. Geopolitical events elicited a sense of urgency for accelerating the energy transition. However, socio-economic
events (high energy prices) aroused critical views towards the transition, reflecting emerging discourses against decarboniza-
tion in the EU. Limited attention to climate and biodiversity on social media may reinforce the perception that these issues
are unrelated to energy governance, driving public support towards uncoordinated, even contradictory, sectorial policies.
The construction of saliency around polarized framing on social media may push opinions against environmental policies
on energy governance, challenging the reconciliation of environmental, economic, and social imperatives of sustainability.
keywords Sensemaking· Issue-attention cycle· Mixed-methods· Energy transition· Environmental governance
Introduction
Human activities are significantly altering the planet’s cli-
mate and ecosystems beyond a “safe space for humanity”
(Díaz etal. 2019; Richardson etal. 2023). Recent evidence
highlights the coupled nature of biodiversity loss and cli-
mate change (IPBES 2019; IPCC 2021) and their complex
connections with other crises including financial, inequal-
ity, health, food, and energy domains (Pörtner etal. 2023;
Lawrence etal. 2024; Swilling 2013). Addressing the crisis
requires novel, integrated approaches, and strong collec-
tive efforts to transform towards sustainability in different
dimensions of societies (IPBES 2019). Understanding how
people make sense of the sustainability crisis is essential for
evaluating the perceptions of problems and potential solu-
tions, thereby uncovering ways to mobilize public support
for environmental action.
Handled by Nidhi Nagabhatla, UNU-CRIS: United Nations
University Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies,
Belgium.
* Anna Hausmann
anna.a.hausmann@jyu.fi
1 Department ofBiological andEnvironmental Science,
School ofResource Wisdom, University ofJyväskylä,
Survontie 9c, 40500Jyvaskyla, Finland
2 Faculty ofOrganic Agricultural Sciences, University
ofKassel, Witzenhausen, Germany
3 Digital Geography Lab, Faculty ofScience, University
ofHelsinki, Helsinki, Finland
4 Helsinki Institute ofSustainability Science (HELSUS),
University ofHelsinki, 00014Helsinki, Finland
5 Department ofSocial Sciences andPhilosophy, School
ofResource Wisdom, University ofJyväskylä, Jyvaskyla,
Finland
6 Department ofAgricultural Economics andRural
Development, University ofGöttingen, Göttingen, Germany
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

920 Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
The ongoing energy crisis plays a central role in influ-
encing potential pathways to sustainability, impacting
social, economic, and environmental dimensions globally
(Goldthau and Tagliapietra 2022). In 2021, global energy
demands, which had been growing with expanding econo-
mies, rapidly escalated during post-COVID-19 pandemic
recovery, outpacing energy supplies and generating energy
shortages (Belaïd etal. 2023). In addition, the confluence of
events such as international disputes on coal trades, major
geopolitical tensions following Russian invasion of Ukraine,
and extreme climate events have further aggravated the situ-
ation (Goldthau and Youngs 2023). By mid-2022, oil, elec-
tricity, and natural gas reached record-high prices, generat-
ing unprecedented surges in energy costs with cascading
consequences, including exacerbating economic inflation
and raising global food prices (e.g. by increasing the cost of
producing synthetic fertilizers used in industrial agriculture),
leading to increasing energy poverty (Hussain etal. 2023).
The effects also exacerbated global inequalities by impact-
ing more strongly on vulnerable economies and low-income
households (Goldthau and Tagliapietra 2022; Hussain etal.
2023). With rising social and political tensions, governments
in Europe have expressed the challenges to balance the need
for securing energy supplies with the affordability of energy
costs and the sustainability of energy sources (Hussain etal.
2023).
The energy crisis was central to policy discussions about
climate and biodiversity during major international events
such as the United Nations Climate Change Conferences
(COP26 and COP27) and theConference of the Parties to
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15).
Among the discussions, the urgent need for phasing out
coal, ending harmful subsidies to fossil fuels, and shifting
to sustainable energy systems were highlighted as part of
countries’ strategies for meeting climate and biodiversity
targets (Alayza etal. 2022; Graham 2021). However, despite
progress in global environmental agendas, the strong reli-
ance of the energy system on fossil fuel, exacerbated during
the energy crisis, has pushed countries to call for a revision
or postponement of emission targets (von Homeyer etal.
2022). In particular, the return to fossil/hydrocarbon fuel
sources, such as coal, severely hindered energy transitions,
holding back national commitments towards climate neu-
trality (Belaïd etal. 2023; Hussain etal. 2023; Muta and
Erdogan 2023). Overall, the energy crisis has intensified
public interest in energy transitions, especially regarding
the urgent need to make sense of the complex ecological,
social, and political dimensions underpinning it. Within this
context, social media platforms have been key spaces for
the rapid production and exchange of information, serving
as environments where influential users and opinion leaders
sparked widespread debates to influence governance (Vrana
etal. 2023).
Digital environments, such as social media platforms,
have become highly used spaces for producing, accessing,
and exchanging news and opinions across geographical bor-
ders (Dellmuth and Shyrokykh 2023; Pearce etal. 2019).
Social media discussions contribute to shaping public per-
ceptions and opinions about climate governance (Dellmuth
and Shyrokykh 2023, see Appendix for definitions). Social
media engagement can drive pro-environmental behavioural
intentions (Alsaad etal. 2023; Kim 2018) and can be pro-
moted by diverse actors (e.g. individuals, organizations)
to mobilize support and collective action for environmen-
tal causes (Segerberg and Bennett 2011). However, these
platforms also facilitate the spread of misinformation and
opinion polarization, fuelled by intentional (e.g. from inter-
net bots and users aiming to deliberately provoke emotional
reactions and arguments) or unintentional actions (e.g. by
users incorporating them into their beliefs). The spread of
misinformation and increasing polarization can ultimately
undermine thelegitimacy of institutions and support for sus-
tainability policies (Azzimonti and Fernandes 2023; Tucker
etal. 2018). Furthermore, social media allows various inter-
est groups to promote specific narratives and influence pub-
lic opinion aiming at driving decision-making in environ-
mental governance (Dellmuth and Shyrokykh 2023; Hopke
2021; Hopke and Hestres 2018; Pearce etal. 2019). Under-
standing thedynamic of attention and engagement may pro-
vide key insights into understanding social media’s role in
public opinion formation and the potential implications for
environmental governance (Dellmuth and Shyrokykh 2023).
Public attention towards complex societal issues, such
as climate change, decarbonization, and biodiversity loss,is
not stable over time but follows cyclical waves of attention
(Djerf-Pierre 2013; Downs 1972; Jarić etal. 2023; Pralle
2010; Shackley and Evar 2012). According to Downs
(1972), such dynamics can be explained by the issue–atten-
tion cycle, which postulates that complex societal issues
tend to suddenly capture the interest of the general public
in correspondence with acute events. During these times,
attention can rise sharply to fade again as attention slowly
shifts towards some other emerging issue. Aligning with
this cycle, social media users' activity (e.g. posting, sharing,
commenting, and liking) also tends to fluctuate over time,
generally increasing quickly in the early stages of an event
(the ‘boom’ phase), to then falling at a slower pace (the
‘fatigue’ phase) as it engages with another type of content
(Araujo and van der Meer 2020). Examining such variations
through the lens of Down’s cycle helps to gain new insights
into social mediadynamics of attention towards environ-
mental issues. Down’s framework has been successfully
used to gain anin-depth understanding of the evolution of
attention on social media during crises (e.g. Lee etal. 2024;
Wang and Guo 2018). Similarly, in the context of the social
media discussions about theEuropean energy crisis, Down’s
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

921Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
framework provides the basis for understanding changes in
content engagement and narrative shifts within the evolution
of attention through time. As social media tends to increase
the speed of information turnover (Dijck and Poell 2013),
applying Down’s framework for examining social media
dynamics can further unveil the role of platforms in accel-
erating the issue–attention cycle. This may have important
implications in eroding public attention capacities faster
(Lorenz-Spreen etal. 2019), as well as leading to the rapid
re-interpretations of environmental problems, ultimately
influencing theevolution of narratives in public discourses.
This study engages with Down’s issue–attention cycle
to examine social media attention patterns and how envi-
ronmental issues are perceived in the context of the energy
crisis. To do this, we explored data from X (formerly Twit-
ter) to understand how climate and biodiversity issues were
perceived concerning energy governance in Europe between
September 2021 and April 2023, and how the most sali-
ent narratives varied over time. Specifically, we (i) inves-
tigated the temporal patterns of attention and whether the
engagement with climate and biodiversity-related content
rose in correspondence to major international events (e.g.
during COPs events), (ii) examined how narratives about
energy, climate, and biodiversity topics varied over time
among themost popular posts, and (iii) assessed the senti-
ment of posts and its temporal variation according to the
changing narratives. We discussed the role of social media in
influencing collective sensemaking and the implications for
environmental advocacy by following an interdisciplinary
approach and integrating insights from multiple fields of
research from both natural and social sciences. In particular,
we integrated insights from media and communication stud-
ies to understand the meaning of attention patterns, trends,
and narrative shifts and how they impact sensemaking
through theconstruction of attention cycles (e.g. Boulianne
etal. 2020; Dijck and Poell 2013; Stieglitz etal. 2018). We
drew on insights from political and social sciences as well
as science and technology studies (e.g. Atkins 2022; Austad
2025; Büscher 2020; Fuchs 2020; Grossman 2022; Lehdon-
virta 2022; Lorenz-Spreen etal. 2019; Mouffe 1999; Savol-
ainen etal. 2020) to discuss the implications of focus events
emerging from social media on climate and biodiversity
governance and highlight some of the emerging challenges
for environmental action.
Methodology
In this study, we applied a mixed-method approach com-
bining quantitative and qualitative analyses to investigate
Down’s (1972) issue–attention cycles on social media data.
We used quantitative methods to statistically determine
waves and peaks of attention and Down’s specific stages
(detailed in “Temporal analysis of content”) within the time-
line. We applied automated state-of-the-art natural language
processing (NLP) techniques and statistical inference meth-
ods to collect, process, and assess the overall content, senti-
ment, and temporal variations of posts as well as to decom-
pose the timeline according to its trends and change points.
We then conducted a qualitative reflexive thematic analysis
to assess shifting narratives and to investigate the content
of themost popular posts shared in the varying stages of
Down’s cycle within the timeline.
Data collection andprocessing
We collected social media data through the openly avail-
able Application Programming Interface (API) of X
through the then-available Academic Research product
track (https:// devel oper. twitt er. com/ en/ docs/ twitt er- api),
and by using the tweetsearcher tool on Python (Väisänen
etal. 2021). X, a micro-blogging platform established in
2006, had approximately 556 million active users globally
by 2023 (Statista 2023). The platform is popular for politi-
cal debates and discussions and has been used as a primary
source for exploring opinion formation and polarization on
social media (Dellmuth and Shyrokykh 2023; Kubin and
von Sikorski 2021; Park 2013; Toivonen etal. 2019). We
collected global posts shared in English between the 1st of
September 2021 and the 11th of April 2023 and pertaining
to the keywords “Energy” and “Europe” (see Appendix for
more details on keyword search). The time frame of the
data collection captured a period characterized by signifi-
cant energy market disruptions in the EU which increased
public attention on energy governance issues (Goldthau
and Tagliapietra 2022; Żuk and Żuk 2022). Alongside
human users, bots also have an important role in manipu-
lating online engagement and influencing perceptions of
what is more or less relevant (Mouronte-López etal. 2024;
Santini etal. 2020). Thus, we included posts from both
bots and human users as analytical targets, as both may
have important roles in constructing attention waves. We
pre-processed the data by using NLP techniques, includ-
ing lemmatizing and stemming words to their meaning-
ful base forms (see details in Appendix). Thereafter, we
divided the dataset into three data subsets: (1) a climate
set, which included all posts mentioning keywords related
to climate issues, namely “climate” or “global warming”,
(2) a biodiversity set, which included all posts mentioning
biodiversity-related keywords, namely “biodiversity” or
“species” or “nature”, and (3) an energy-only set, which
included all the remaining posts, excluding the climate
and the biodiversity ones. The subsets were used to ana-
lyse data both as a whole and separately to specifically
investigate each set. We followed ethical standards in the
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

922 Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
collection and processing of the data to ensure the ano-
nymity of users and compliance with the European Union
General Data Protection Regulation (Di Minin etal. 2021).
Data collection was conducted in Python (Van Rossum and
Drake 2009), while all data processing and analysis were
conducted in R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).
Content andsentiment analyses
To obtain an overview of the discussions about energy gov-
ernance, climate, and biodiversity, we analysed the content
of the posts by using automated NLP techniques. For each
data subset, we calculated the most frequent unigrams (i.e.
single words) and bi-grams (i.e. two-word combinations),
specifically for the words “energy”, “climate”, and “biodi-
versity”. In addition, we extracted the top 30 most frequent
hashtags overall. Hashtags are key tools in thevirality of
messaging and are used to enhance the posts’ visibility
across groups and networks (Wang etal. 2016). To assess
how the strategic combinations of hashtags were intention-
ally used by users to reach different groups, to make connec-
tions, and to enhance visibility, we constructed a co-occur-
rence network between themost frequent hashtags. Nodes
corresponded to hashtags and the edges represented thefre-
quency of co-appearance in the same posts. Furthermore,
to assess thecontent of the most influential posts overall,
we extracted the top three most re-shared posts in each data
subset (TableS1, Appendix).
To assess whether COP events, occurring during the
study period, were eliciting higher attention towards climate
and biodiversity issues, we extracted the proportion of daily
posts for the climate and biodiversity data subset during
the COP26 (Oct 31, 2021–Nov 12, 2021), COP27 (Nov 6,
2022–Nov 18, 2022), and CBD COP15 (Dec 7, 2022–Dec
19, 2022). We used non-parametric Chi-square goodness
of fit to assess whether the daily averages of posts within
the climate and biodiversity subsets during the events were
higher from a random sample of the same length of days.
To assess the emotional components of posts, we used a
sentiment analysis approach. We used theNational Research
Council Canada (NRC) Word–Emotion Association Lexi-
con (see more details in Mohammad and Turney 2013).
We obtained sentiment scores per post and daily varia-
tions in sentiment. We validated the automatic annotation
by calculating F1-score measures with a manually anno-
tated sample (Ribeiro etal. 2016) (see Appendix for more
details). To assess sentiment variation over time, we used
ANOVA (α = 0.05) to assess whether daily average values
varied across temporal stages (see more details in “Tem-
poral analysis of content”) in the energy-only, climate, and
biodiversity posts. We used pairwise Tukey post hoc tests to
assess the magnitude of change among consecutive stages.
Finally, to assess the frequency of sentiment polarity per day
across stages, we calculated the proportion of positive and
negative days, weighted by the number of days, per stage.
Temporal analysis ofcontent
To assess how attention evolved during the study period, we
investigated temporal trends and described changes in pat-
terns according to the five stages of the issue–attention cycle
(Downs 1972). According to Down, the attention cycle starts
with the pre-problem stage, occurring when a highly unde-
sirable condition captures the attention of only a few people
(e.g. experts). Second, the alarmed discovery stage sets the
moment when a sudden or uncommon event suddenly con-
centrates the attention of the general public. A sense of opti-
mism that the issues could be solved relatively fast tends to
characterize this stage of increased public awareness. Third,
attention peaks during the realization of cost and signifi-
cant changes stage which occurs when it becomes evident
that addressing the issue would require major costs or sacri-
fices, as well as sustained attention and effort to foster deep
changes in societal structures and behaviours. Fourth, as
solving the issue may not be straightforward, interest in the
issue begins to slow down into the gradual decline stage,
with a sense of discouragement or fatigue. Finally, in the
post-problem stage, interest fades away as people generally
shift attention towards another issue.
To identify temporal patterns and assess changes in
thecontent of discussions in each stage, we first assessed the
daily volumes of posts in the timeline and then followed a
mixed-method approach. Quantitative analyses were used to
identify the stages of attention by statistically decomposing
the timeline according to trends and change points (changes
in direction) through the Bayesian Estimator of Abrupt
Change, Seasonal Change, and Trend (BEAST) (Zhao
etal. 2019). To identify change points, the BEAST model
applies a Bayesian algorithm to identify trends (as a line)
while accounting for seasonal change. We used autocorrela-
tion analyses to identify seasonality and used the results to
include a 7-day seasonality effect in the BEAST (see Appen-
dix for details). Moreover, to assess events sparking attention
we identified the daily peaks of volume across the timeline
by using an outlier detection technique (Fink etal. 2020).
This technique calculates the days in which the volume of
posts diverged from the overall pattern with values greater
than Q3 + (1.5 × IQR), and greater than Q3 + (3xIQR) for
outliers and extreme outliers, respectively, where Q3 is the
third quartile and IQR is the interquartile range.
The timeline decomposition was interpreted accord-
ing to the different chronological stages of attention of the
issue–attention cycle, grouped into separate waves. There-
after, two of the authors identified sub-themes in each stage
and the overall theme in each wave, by conducting qualitative
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

923Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2013; Byrne 2022). The-
matic analysis is a family of methods of identifying and inter-
preting patterns (themes) within qualitative data (Braun and
Clarke 2019). As we aimed to assess thechanging saliency of
topics, we focussed on coding thecontent of the most popu-
lar posts. These comprised the top 100 most re-shared posts
within energy-only, climate, and biodiversity subsets, extracted
from the most active days within each stage. Most active days
corresponded to the outlier days (grouped according to the
corresponding stage), or to the top 25% of most active days
in stages where no outlier days occurred. Outliers were also
used to identify the most active stages across the study period
and further investigated to identify the main events from news
headlines and by carrying out a manual web search on the
corresponding date (Fink etal. 2020).
The content of themost popular posts within each stage
was coded to assess evolving themes and narratives. To do
this, our analyses followed abductive reasoning to coding and
thematic analysis, involving a parallel engagement with both
empirical data and relevant theoretical understanding (Braun
and Clarke 2019; Thompson 2022; Timmermans and Tavory
2012). Abduction is a form of logical inference aiming at
obtaining plausible interpretations of accounts by harnessing
the best available information when information is incomplete,
thus considering uncertainty in research (Sætre and Van de
Ven 2021). To capture fluid and diverse perceptions about the
key concepts of this study on social media (e.g. energy crisis,
biodiversity, sustainability), we adopted a constructivist epis-
temological position (Braun and Clarke 2013; Creswelland
Creswell 2017). This position assumes that meaning is cre-
ated as people engage with and interpret the world accord-
ing to different cultural, historical, and personal perspectives
and experiences (Cortés-Capano etal. 2020; Creswelland
Creswell 2017). This implies that the meanings and themes are
not inherent in the data but are co-constructed through interac-
tions between the analysts and the data, informed by experi-
ences and theoretical lenses (Braun and Clarke 2013). As user-
generated data from social media is inherently unstructured,
biased (e.g. in terms of representativeness) and dynamic, this
approach allows embracing ofcreativity from the analysts’
experiences to make sense of data, acknowledging the impor-
tance of the researcher’s active role in knowledge production
(Braun and Clarke 2019). We assessed how attention on cer-
tain events,and popularposts (Zhou etal. 2023),was placed
within a field of meaning intended to highlight aspects that
can influence others’ opinions. Two of the authors engaged in
iterative discussions to develop the narratives around the main
themes, focusing on how the links between climate, biodiver-
sity, and energy governance were articulated at each stage.
Results
Content andsentiment ofposts
We retrieved a total of 633,807 posts, generated by 119,254
active users. On average, daily posts were 1,076 with a
minimum of 74 on the 1st of September 2021 and a maxi-
mum of 6,731 on the 8th of September 2022 (Fig.1, panel
A). Overall, climate-related posts were 3.3% (21,929 by
8,299 users), while biodiversity-related posts were 0.2%
(1,338 by 759 users) of the total number, reflecting daily
averages across the timeline (3.2% ± 2.1% for climate and
0.29% ± 0.6% for biodiversity posts). Posts mentioning both
climate and biodiversity keywords were 304, posted by 262
users. Average daily proportions of posts mentioning climate
and biodiversity keywords during COP26, COP27, and CBD
COP15 did not vary from the rest of the timeline, as there
were no statistically significant differences from random
samples of thesame length (respectively: X-squared = 156,
df = 144, p-value = 0.2335; X-squared = 156, df = 144, p
value = 0.2335; X-squared = 72, df = 64, p value = 0.2303)
(Fig.1, panel B).
According to overall word frequencies (Fig.2, panel A),
the content of energy-only posts (i.e. those excluding the cli-
mate and the biodiversity ones) focused on economic aspects
of energy markets, (e.g. “gas”, “price”, “supply”) and geo-
political challenges (e.g. “Russia”, “Ukraine”, “war”). On
climate-oriented posts, most frequent words revealed a focus
on energy policies (e.g. “green”, “policy”, “renewables”)
and economic and political aspects of climate issues (e.g.
“price”, “fuel”, “war”). In biodiversity-related posts, fre-
quent words focused on conservation concerns, especially
of forest ecosystems (e.g. “forest”, “tree”, “threat”, “pro-
tect”). The term "crisis" was among the most used words in
connection with the words “energy”, “climate”, and “bio-
diversity” (TableS2, Appendix). Hashtags co-occurrence
network showed that most frequent connections across posts
were related to geopolitical (e.g. #Russia, #Ukraine, #USA,
#China, #NATO, #Ukrainewar) and economic (e.g. #infla-
tion, #sanctions, #economy) topics related to fossil fuels
(#gas, #oil, #naturalgas). On a marginal side (less frequent
connections) and bridged by the hashtag #energycrisis, fre-
quent hashtags covered topics related to alternative sources
of energy (e.g. #nuclear, #solar, #wind, #renewables), energy
policies (e.g. #energytransitions, #sustainability, #cleanen-
ergy), and climate issues (e.g. #climatechange) (Fig.2, panel
B).
According to sentiment polarity classes, 37.5% of posts
had a positive sentiment, 33% were negative, and 31.5%
were neutral. Compared to manual classification, the polar-
ity predictions were highly accurate with F1-scores of 0.853
(precision = 0.82, recall = 0.86) for positive annotations and
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

924 Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
0.841 (precision = 0.9, recall = 0.83) for negative annota-
tions. Sentiment values per post ranged from 12 to − 12, with
a slightly positive average of 0.133.
Temporal stages ofattention
According to the timeline decomposition, a total of 10
change-points and 11 stages were identified (TableS3 and
S4, Appendix), which were grouped in three waves accord-
ing to the issue–attention cycle (wave I, II, and III, Fig.3).
Moreover, 42 outlier days were identified, of which 16 were
extreme outliers (Fig.3). Average sentiment values were
significantly different across stages for energy-only posts
(ANOVA: f-value = 596, p < 0.001), climate (ANOVA:
f-value = 46.156, p < 0.001), and biodiversity (ANOVA:
f-value = 5.6088, p = 0.001) (Fig.4 panel A, and see panel
B for effect sizes). Below, we present the narratives of the
themes emerging in each stage of the three waves. For more
details of the narratives, see Appendix. The examples of
popular posts in each stage can be found in TableS5 in the
Appendix.
Wave I: unfolding theenergy crisis
The first wave of attention was observed in September and
peaked in October 2021, before the UN COP26 climate sum-
mit. Stimulated by increasing energy costs, the wave theme
“Unfolding energy crisis” focused on users discussing grow-
ing concerns over energy prices and assessing the measures
taken to address them. On average, sentiment values were
positive throughout the wave with an optimistic outlook.
“Impacts and responsibilities of the energy crisis” char-
acterized the sub-theme of growing attention during the first
stage (I-1, condensing alarmed discovery and realization of
costs stages of the issue–attention cycle). Here, popular posts
focused on making sense of the origin, causes, and impacts
of the crisis. The renewable energy sector was perceived
to be responsible for generating high energy prices, by not
being able to meet escalating energy demand of recovering
economies after COVID-19 lockdowns. At the same time,
the upcoming COP26 conference was perceived to represent
an opportunity for governments to address the rising demand
for fossil fuels by promoting a smoother transition to renew-
able energy sources. Daily attention dropped sharply at the
Fig. 1 Total number of posts per
day (A) and daily proportions
of posts mentioning climate and
biodiversity (B)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

925Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
second stage (I-2, condensing decline of interest and post-
problem stages), characterized by the sub-theme “Changes
in energy policies”. Here, popular posts focused on oppor-
tunities and challenges arising from the new EU strategy
for declaring nuclear energy and natural gas as sustainable
sources. While some users supported the move for promot-
ing financial investments supporting a faster achievement
of climate neutrality goals, others highlighted the lack of
sustainability of such energy sources, criticizing the deci-
sion by calling it “greenwashing”. Meanwhile, popular posts
considering biodiversity issues in energy governance high-
lighted concerns over the negative social and environmental
effects of renewable energy sources (such as biofuel and
hydropower), threatening biodiversity, people’s health, and
social justice.
Wave II: geopolitical instability
The second wave of attention, themed "geopolitical instabil-
ity," began overlapping with the end of the previous wave
as the energy crisis continued to unfold. Attention peaked
in late February 2022, following the Russian army's inva-
sion of Ukraine, with an overall positive sentiment value in
the posts (Fig.4). Addressing the energy crisis became a
matter of national security, with securing affordable energy
through domestic production, including previously dis-
missed fossil fuel sources like coal, considered a priority for
Fig. 2 Frequency of the most used words in posts related to energy-only, climate, and biodiversity (A) and co-occurrence network among the top
30 most frequent hashtags (B)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

926 Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
policymaking. At the same time, popular posts also covered
priorities of accelerating the energy transition, focusing on
boosting the renewable energy sector to achieve energy inde-
pendence from Russian imports and fossil fuels and building
a more resilient energy system.
At the onset of the wave, the sub-theme "Independence
from Russian imports" characterized the sharp increase
in post volume during the alarmed discovery stage (II-
1). Discussions focused on the repercussions of Russian
aggression on the European energy market, emphasizing
the urgent need to break European dependency on Russian
natural gas imports. Some users endorsed strategies accel-
erating the transition away from fossil fuels as the key to
achieving independence. However, concerns were raised
about the need to continue relying on Russian natural gas
to combat the escalating energy crisis. Others criticized EU
policies promoting renewables in the past for increasing the
dependency on Russian supplies of natural gas and reduc-
ing the overall resilience of the European energy system. A
significant drop in sentiment occurred on the 5th of March
Fig. 3 Daily total post volume
and sentiment values, along
with the key sub-themes and
events identified from the most
popular posts at each stage. The
timeline is divided into waves
(I, II, and III) and correspond-
ing stages of attention (see
Table1 for a detailed descrip-
tion of these stages). Coloured
areas highlight periods of
heightened attention, marked
by daily post outliers—identi-
fied at 95% (outliers) and 99%
(extreme outliers) confidence
levels. Outlier days are grouped
according to their respective
wave and stage
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

927Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
Table 1 Themes and sub-themes characterizing social media content in each wave (waves I, II, and III) and the wave’s stages of attention
adapted from Down’s (1972) issue–attention cycle
Wave theme Stage type Sub-theme Description
Unfolding the energy crisis (I) Alarmed discovery/realization of
costs (I-1)
Impacts and responsibility of the
energy crisis
The energy crisis driving up costs fol-
lowing surges in demand by recov-
ering economies post-COVID-19
lockdowns and low supply capacity.
Inefficient energy systems and unreli-
able renewable sources are blamed for
the crisis. Governments are urged to
take action at COP26
Decline of interest/post-problem
(I-2)
Changes in energy policies The EU labelled nuclear and natural
gas as sustainable energy sources,
sparking enthusiasm for accelerating
the energy transition. However, some
posts raised concerns about the risks
of greenwashing new unsustainable
power plant constructions. Some users
called for an energy transition that
benefits both people and nature
Geopolitical instability (II) Alarmed discovery (II-1) Independence from Russian
imports
EU countries imposed sanctions on Rus-
sia following its invasion of Ukraine,
disrupting natural gas supplies to
Europe. The turmoil raised a sense of
urgency to boost renewables to speed
up the energy transition and reduce
dependence on Russian imports. The
opponents argued that climate-oriented
energy policies created dependence
on Russia
Realization of costs (II-2) Re-shaping energy markets Users discussed the need for rearranging
the geopolitical and economic situa-
tion of the European energy market.
A proposed revision of the European
Renewable Energy Directive could
accelerate investments in renewables,
but users expressed concerns about
relaxing environmental regulations,
threatening biodiversity. Climate-
oriented energy policies were seen
as responsible for reducing system
resilience due to inadequate develop-
ment of renewables
Decline of interest (II-3) Energy as a national security
concern
Prioritizing energy security over
environmental commitments gained
attention. A new agreement with the
USA to foster independence from Rus-
sia generated prospects of accelerated
energy transitions in the EU, framed
as an opportunity to meet both climate
and security needs. Increasing imports
of LNG to the EU as part of the
agreement were both supported and
criticized
Post-problem (II-4) Accelerating energy transitions Support for accelerating the EU energy
transition as a solution to the crisis
got more popular. The need to end the
Energy Charter Treaty, compromis-
ing the Paris Agreement, began to be
discussed
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

928 Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
2022 (Fig.3), following news of Russian army control of a
nuclear power plant in Ukraine. Fears grew quickly over the
risks of a nuclear disaster and potential impacts on people
and nature especially in biodiversity-related posts. In the
following stage (II-2), characterized by the sub-theme "Re-
shaping energy markets" (realization of costs and significant
changes), users discussed the urgent need for fundamental
changes in global energy markets. Popular posts also dis-
cussed a new EU proposal to revise the European Renew-
able Energy Directive, aiming to speed up the deployment
of renewables as a solution to the crisis while meeting the
environmental targets. However, some criticized the climate
agenda as exaggerated alarmism, contributing only to desta-
bilizing the energy sector. Few biodiversity-related posts
highlighted the poor consideration of biodiversity issues and
the need to align biodiversity targets with renewable energy
and climate neutrality goals in policymaking.
Daily post volume declined in stage II-3 (decline of inter-
est), with discussions shifting to the sub-theme "Energy as
a national security concern" where finding solutions for
urgent independence from Russian imports was perceived
as a priority of national security. Some users viewed climate
Table 1 (continued)
Wave theme Stage type Sub-theme Description
Socio-economic concerns (III) Pre-problem (III-1) Supply cuts and extreme weather Russia cut natural gas supplies, bring-
ing concerns about limited access to
affordable energy. As countries take
further steps returning to hydrocarbon
sources, concerns over failing climate
targets grew. Heatwaves, wildfires, and
droughts that hit Europe and North
America became examples of the tan-
gible effects of the climate crisis
Alarmed discovery (III-2) Natural gas prices peak As electricity costs surged to record
high, posts focused on the impacts on
households’ economies, referring to
the struggle of lower-income people
to meet basic needs (energy poverty).
Securing affordable energy, even at the
expense of environmental commit-
ments, was advocated as a priority for
policy
Realization of costs (III-3) Cost-of-living crisis Climate-oriented policies were
mostlycriticized for worsening the
cost-of-living crisis, with some claim-
ing grater harm to well-being than
climate change itself. The urgency
of climate emergency and its validity
were questioned. Concerns grew over
the potential impact of measures to
speed up the transition on biodiversity
and people’s rights
Decline of interest (III-4) Solution discontent Growing discontent with the measures
taken to address the energy crisis
brought a sense of discouragement
in addressing both people’s well-
being and the climate agenda. The
climate emergency was described as
an undemocratic narrative forced on
people
Post-problem (III-5) Future of energy policies Fostering renewables was seen as key
to addressing the energy crisis. At the
same time, climate-oriented policies
and climate “alarmists” were deemed
responsible for creating multidimen-
sional crises
The content was assessed from the most popular posts linking climate, biodiversity, and the energy governance in Europe on Twitter/X between
September 2021 and April 2023
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

929Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
policies as a threat to security because of the push for dis-
mantling domestic fossil fuel-based energy production to
meet climate targets, leading to further reliance on external
supplies from Russia for energy supply and other countries.
At the same time, concerns were also raised over a general
tendency to step back on the climate agenda, with countries
building new gas pipelines and returning to coal production
to secure energy supplies. Despite declining attention, post
volume briefly sparked again in correspondence with a new
agreement establishing the Task Force on Energy Security
between the EU and the USA. This created a short enthu-
siasm for a resolution which could promote a faster energy
transition. However, skepticism arose over the high environ-
mental impacts of increased imports of liquified natural gas
(LNG) shipped by the USA as part of the agreement. Popular
biodiversity-related posts emphasized the need to integrate
ecological restoration into the energy transition visions to
avoid negative impacts. In the post-problem stage (II-4), the
sub-theme "Accelerating energy transitions" emerged, with
support for acceleration growing stronger among popular
posts. Users highlighted opportunities from new EU fund-
ing for the development of technologies to improve energy
efficiency and for efforts to end the Energy Charter Treaty,
which was allowing companies to sue governments for cli-
mate policies threatening their revenues. Concerning biodi-
versity, users continued to emphasize the negative impacts
that renewables can have on biodiversity and the need to find
win–win solutions for both climate and biodiversity.
Wave III: socio‑economic concerns
Social media attention resumed in the pre-problem stage
of the third wave, peaking in July 2022 due to unprec-
edented increases in energy prices. This wave, themed
Fig. 4 Daily averages of senti-
ment values in energy-only,
climate, and biodiversity-related
posts according to temporal
variations (A), and values
of average sentiment change
between stages according to the
post hoc Tukey test on pairwise
comparisons of means with 95%
confidence level (B). Asterisks
in panel B indicate a high prob-
ability of significant change
values (p > 0.001)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

930 Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
"socio-economic concerns," focused on discussions about
European energy governance in relation to the escalating
impacts of the energy crisis on the economy, particularly at
the household level. Popular posts emphasized the urgency
of securing affordable energy, with climate and biodiversity
goals seen as less pressing concerns. The wave also saw
a significant drop in average sentiment, becoming mostly
negative throughout (Fig.4).
Slowly growing attention during the pre-problem stage
(III-1) was characterized by the “Supply cuts and extreme
weather” sub-theme. The tangible effects of extreme weather
combined with struggles from additional supply cuts from
Russia were leveraged to endorse a sense of urgency for
accelerating the energy transition. The “Natural gas prices
peak” was the theme characterizing a new sharp escalation
of attention at the end of August (alarmed discovery stage),
corresponding to a skyrocketing increase in energy prices.
Posts turned into highlighting impacts on national econo-
mies and people’s livelihoods, causing “energy poverty”.
Discussions focused on people’s financial possibilities and
in the ways through which energy prices were forcing poorer
and elderly people to compromise on basic needs (e.g. “heat
or eat?”). The “Cost-of-living crisis” was the theme charac-
terizing the highest peak in the timeline in stage III-3 (reali-
zation of costs and significant changes), when 100% of the
days were outliers (group 6) and sentiment values became on
average strongly negative. Users referred to the energy crisis
as spiralling into causing living costs to rise significantly
faster than what people could afford, fearing the worsening
of the situation in the upcoming winter with growing energy
needs. Climate policies were strongly criticized for being
the underlying causes of the energy crisis and the biggest
barriers to solving it, for example, by blocking the extrac-
tion of domestic natural gas reserves (e.g. through frack-
ing). Addressing the cost-of-living crisis was considered
to be the highest priority for policymaking, overriding the
climate emergency. In this sense, some users leveraged these
aspects to refer to climate change as a “hoax”, to stress that
its emergency was a “forced” narrative damaging people’s
livelihoods, to show skepticism and deny it as a problem,
and to call for abandoning climate alarmism as a govern-
ing principle. Meanwhile, some users highlighted issues of
renewable energy strategies turning into subsidizing biomass
providers and wood pellets, blaming climate action incon-
sistency for turning into logging European natural forests
and burning trees for fuel.
The “Solutions discontent” sub-theme characterized the
stage III-4 (decline of interest). Popular posts focused on
criticizing governments’ measures to lower energy con-
sumption, which was allegedly impacting people’s overall
livelihoods and well-being. On the other hand, other users
highlighted their discontent over countries’ continued draw-
backs from climate goals (e.g. return to coal mining), and
called for fundamental social transformations, addressing
social justice issues to meet climate goals. Finally, stage
III-5 (post-problem) was characterized by the sub-theme
“Future of energy policies” as users discussed strategies
for moving beyond fossil fuels. Sentiment values increased
again to become positive. Discussions on alternatives to fos-
sil fuels, such as hydrogen, biofuel, nuclear, solar, and wind
energy production were prominent. However, some users
highlighted challenges related to renewable energy sources
for being too unreliable (wind “droughts” as a growing chal-
lenge) and unsustainable (e.g. impact on biodiversity con-
servation). Meanwhile, discontent over climate policies con-
tinued as users referred to them as “disastrous”, and causing
harm purposefully. Climate change was referred to as unreal,
climate action as nonsense, and climate “alarmists” as those
responsible for the ongoing crisis.
Discussion
Our in-depth assessment of social media content and tem-
poral dynamics of posting revealed that discussions about
European energy governance were dominated by geopoliti-
cal and socio-economic concerns, with limited attention to
climate and biodiversity issues. The attention fluctuated
over time, with activity peaking in three main waves with
discussions over (i) causes and responsibilities of the unfold-
ing energy crisis, (ii) the impacts of geopolitical instability
following Russian invasion of Ukraine, and (iii) surges in
energy prices impacting household economies. Interpreting
this pattern with the issue–attention cycle (Downs 1972)
suggests that social media users’ engagement with long-term
societal challenges rapidly intensifies around acute events
and immediate issues. However, we found that attention
towards the energy crisis, both overall and in correspond-
ence to key events (e.g. COPs), did not result in higher
engagement with climate and biodiversity topics and that the
interconnectedness of environmental challenges was mostly
overlooked. In addition, we found that when climate and bio-
diversity issues were addressed, they were mostly linked to
the opportunities and challenges of renewable energy transi-
tions as solutions to the ongoing energy crisis (Żuk and Żuk
2022). By assessing the evolution of attention around focus
events, we identified rapidly shifting priorities over time,
with popular content highlighting different angles and inter-
pretations as new events unfolded. While focus events may
represent critical momentsto leverage public support for
environmental advocacy and action (Jarić etal. 2023), our
findings suggest that, on social media, these events provide
only brief windows of opportunities. The relatively rapid
shifts of concerns and the tendency to focus on immedi-
ate issues during acute events (Weick 1993) may increase
the fragmentation of narratives (Sadler 2021) undermining
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

931Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
collective sensemaking of broader long-term issues (Stieg-
litz etal. 2018). This could result in eliciting higher sup-
port for “tunnel vision” approaches or partial solutions in
policymaking, which could worsen neglected dimensions of
the sustainability crisis (e.g. biodiversity loss, social justice,
Durá-Alemañ etal. 2023; Savasta-Kennedy 2014). Overall,
considering social media’s increasing importance in influ-
encing public opinions, policy discussions, and political and
environmental activism (Boulianne etal. 2020; Dellmuth
and Shyrokykh 2023; Grossman 2022), our findings on
attention patterns carry important political implications for
addressing the sustainability crisis.
Higher attention on social media may contribute to fos-
tering public awareness over sustainability issues and steer
policy agenda setting to better address environmental prob-
lems underpinning them (e.g. Dellmuth and Shyrokykh
2023; Segerberg and Bennett 2011). However, contrary to
expectations, our results revealed a non-significant increase
in users’ attention during major environmental policy events,
such as the UN’s COPs on climate change and biodiversity
in 2021 and 2022. Instead, although climate and biodiver-
sity issues were present in the broader discussions about
energy governance, attention was dominated by other geo-
political and socio-economic issues. Especially in times of
crisis, people tend to simplify complexity to make sense
of uncertain and ambiguous situations (Weick 1993, 1994).
Accordingly, we found that social media users simplified
complex sustainability challenges by concentrating atten-
tion on the most immediate concerns. These findings reflect
broader public debates about theenergy crisis (Goldthau
and Tagliapietra 2022; Żuk and Żuk 2022). However, our
study reveals important implications regarding how this
focus on social media discussions may inadvertently conceal
the role of environmental dimensions and their deep entan-
glement with various political and socio-economic chal-
lenges (Lawrence etal. 2024; Linnér and Wibeck 2019). As
people increasingly access social media platforms to make
inter-subjective senses of what is happening and how to act
accordingly (Chater and Loewenstein 2016; Stieglitz etal.
2018), such narrow focus may reinforce the conceptualiza-
tion that environmental aspects, such as climate and biodi-
versity issues, are separate or less urgent in comparison with
other issues. This online selective attention may contribute
to influencing the fragmentation of problems and possible
solutions tothesustainability crisis in public discussions.
Making sense of the broader sustainability crisis around
a narrow set of immediate concerns, such as byoverlooking
more holistic perspectives in the energy system (Koundouri
etal. 2024), can lead to the inadequate formulation of prob-
lems and solutions. Rather than fostering more systemic
transformative changes, focus events are often used to justify
sectorial policies for quick fixes, which may end up favour-
ing one side of the crisis, but undermine other aspects. For
example, the EU has leveraged the geopolitical crisis and
the need to urgently enhance energy security, to push for an
acceleration of investments towards renewables (e.g. with
the REpowerEU proposal, European Commission 2022).
However, the move was criticized for enhancing threats to
biodiversity through regressive policies (e.g. relaxing envi-
ronmental protection) and exacerbating environmental injus-
tices in the Global South by increasing extractive practices
for critical materials (Durá-Alemañ etal. 2023; Goldthau
and Youngs 2023). According to Down’s cycle, theearly
stages of the issue–attention cycle often involve simplifying
complexities around acute events, such as focusing on nar-
row aspects of broader issues. This tendency is driven by a
sense of urgency and optimism over society’s ability to solve
the problem quickly, which can push for solutions that avoid
fundamental societal changes (Downs 1972). This might be
also reinforced by the mainstreaming of ‘ecomodernist’
positions which accept the need for addressing environ-
mental issues by intensifying the use of “smart” technolo-
gies and approaches to planning centred around efficiency
(Scoones 2022). The spread of social media narratives that
attempt to simplify the crisis to a limited set of variables to
be rationally controlled can compromise collective sense-
making capabilities to effectively engage with increasingly
complex sustainability problems and solutions (Chester etal.
2023; Stieglitz etal. 2018). Thus, social media discussions
neglecting environmental issues during focus events may
potentially erode support for systemic approaches to the
sustainability crisis.
In the age of so-called post-truth politics, social media is
a critical tool for the proliferation of narratives leveraging
public anxiety and dissatisfaction to gain support for politi-
cal agendas (Austad 2025). In our study, we found that dis-
cussions initially centred on the causes of the energy crisis,
with polarized narratives blaming environmental policies for
energy shortages during post-COVID-19 economic recovery
(Hussain etal. 2023). In the second wave of attention, trig-
gered by geopolitical turmoil, debates focused on the need
for energy independence. Here, two opposing narratives
emerged, one advocating for accelerated energy transitions
and another prioritizing “national energy security”, even at
the expense of environmental targets (e.g. by turning back
to coal) (von Homeyer etal. 2022; Żuk and Żuk 2022). In
the final and highest wave of attention, which corresponded
to unprecedented surges in energy costs, critical positions
towards the energy transition surged in popularity, with an
overall negative sentiment that dominated posts throughout
the wave. These positions pointed to environmental regu-
lations as the root cause of energy poverty and a broader
cost-of-living crisis, reflecting emerging discourses against
decarbonization in the EU (Atkins 2022). Hostility towards
climate alarmism escalated involving antagonist politi-
cal relations (Mouffe 1999), such as those characterizing
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

932 Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
conservative resistance to the energy transition (Atkins
2022; Martin and Islar 2021). Particularly on Twitter/X,
social media algorithmic bias favouring content that gener-
ates engagement may amplify visibility on such discourses,
even if heated exchanges are elicited by low-credibility
content produced by few high-impact users (Corsi 2024).
We found that influential users, who have been important in
sparking debates on X/Twitter during the crisis (Vrana etal.
2023), amplified discourses that prioritized energy afford-
ability over climate targets, framed around an “us versus
them” and “the end of the month is more important than the
end of the world” rhetoric. In Europe, growing discourses
over the high costs of net-zero policies have been increas-
ingly picked up by right-wing populisms to push for political
agendas against decarbonization and supporting fossil fuel
extraction (e.g. fracking of natural gas) (Atkins 2022). By
amplifying polarized framings and antagonistic narratives
against environmental topics, including climate change deni-
alism, social media platforms can contribute to undermining
the perceived legitimacy of environmental institutions, com-
promising long-term support for action (Falkenberg etal.
2022; Harkins etal. 2022; Kubin and von Sikorski 2021).
Increasing challenges ofsocial media
With the growing fragmentation of the media environment,
disrupting power dynamics between different actors (e.g.
traditional media, stakeholders, and civil society) (Chad-
wick 2017), the increasing dominance of social media use in
information poses new challenges for environmental advo-
cacy to raise awareness and influence policy change.
The rapid flow of information and shifts in focus on social
media platforms may accelerate attention fatigue further reduc-
ing the capacity for collective sensemaking needed to address
complex sustainability challenges (Chester etal. 2023). While
the energy crisis represented an opportunity to increase atten-
tion towards interconnected sustainability concerns, the dis-
semination of information on social media may have under-
mined support for coordinated environmental action on energy
governance. According to the issue–attention cycle, although a
problem may suddenly capture public attention, it is how long
the attention is sustained that determines whether it would be
sufficient to generate political pressure for effective change.
With the pace of information fluctuations accelerating, social
media platforms have intensified the competition for attention
as part of their business models (Pedersen etal. 2021). Thus,
social media dynamics intensify challenges related to capturing
and sustaining the public’s attention in an increasingly competi-
tive environment, crowded with a large and rapid flow of infor-
mation. The acceleration of attention dynamics is particularly
problematic when initial spikes in concern may not translate
into the sustained pressure needed for policy change. This raises
further concerns regarding the political nature and implications
of content production, circulation, and consumption on social
media which is leading to faster depletion of collective attention
capacities (Lorenz-Spreen etal. 2019).
Mechanisms underpinning the construction of saliency on
social media tend to follow algorithmic biases prioritizing con-
tent for its ability to capture users’ attention, feeding on strong
emotional reactions and polarized rhetoric (Corsi 2024; Eberl
etal. 2020; Harkins etal. 2022; Savolainen etal. 2020). These
not only shape what issues receive higher attention and what
is suppressed (Kasperson etal. 1988), but also distort content
towards interests driven by the political and economic agenda
of the platforms, where visibility and users’ interactions and
engagements are commodified for profit (Büscher 2020; Leh-
donvirta 2022). While providing an accessible space for mobili-
zation, the reliance on social media for environmental advocacy
may risk reinforcing post-truth dynamics, where factual infor-
mation competes with sensational content, thereby undermin-
ing the long-term focus necessary for effective environmental
action (Büscher 2020; van Dyk 2022). Furthermore, the more
recent user migration away from Twitter/X to other platforms
like Bluesky, Threads, and Mastodon is splintering users into
separate domains. This makes examining public reactions to
events in future studies more complicated as the users are dis-
persed across numerous platforms (Failla and Rossetti 2024;
Jeong etal. 2024; La Cava etal. 2022).
Content saliency on social media is shaped by the structures
of the platform, which reflect and exacerbate existing social
inequalities, often amplifying the voices of more privileged
users (Hargittai 2020). This may limit the diversity of perspec-
tives in environmental discussions, for example overlooking
localized experiences and responses to the crisis, especially in
multilingual contexts. In this sense, while our study provides an
understanding of Twitter/X users who use the English language
to discuss the energy crisis, there might be a wider spectrum of
attitudes in other languages occurring at the same time. Social
media content is highly multilingual, and the prevalence of con-
tent in languages other than English varies considerably from
country to country (Mocanu etal. 2013; Väisänen etal. 2022).
Thus, although English is the prevalent language on Twitter/X,
our approach does not represent a comprehensive overview of
Twitter/X users' reactions and attitudes towards the European
energy crisis. This underscores the importance of future research
to use multilingual approaches and the necessity of NLP tech-
niques to be developed for and applied to less-resourced lan-
guages as well.
Conclusions
In the EU, the recent social and geopolitical crises have
influenced short-term priorities, undermining long-term
environmental action and efforts towards the green energy
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

933Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
transition (Hussain etal. 2023). By exploring the link
between climate and biodiversity concerns with other
societal challenges, such as energy governance, our study
provides new insights into the role of social media in the
construction of saliency about these topics, which may
ultimately affect collective sensemaking and public sup-
port for political agendas. Despite the interconnectedness
of the sustainability crisis, social media attention may tend
to reinforce thefragmentation of concerns by prioritiz-
ing discussions over immediate, unidimensional blanket
solutions, rather than more holistic considerations. In
addition, given the increasing homogenization of online
networks exacerbating social polarization and outgroup
hostility (Tokita etal. 2021), the spread of oversimplified
narratives raises concerns over the role of these platforms
in increasing tension between societal priorities, rather
than focussing on constructive approaches to integra-
tive solutions. Further understanding the mechanisms of
information diffusion at the interface between media and
social media may provide additional insights into which
opinions, discourses, knowledge, and beliefs are produced
or reproduced in the process (Dellmuth and Shyrokykh
2023). In addition, future research could benefit from
long-term analyses to identify broader trends and under-
lying factors shaping attention and perceptions (e.g. meta-
cycles, Djerf-Pierre 2013), for instance, according to shifts
in social norms and cultural values, evolving roles of key
actors, and the expanding role of digital platforms. Thus,
understanding the temporal dynamics of cross-fertilization
within and outside the platforms may help understand not
only the role of social media in constructing public atten-
tion, but also assess when and how different levers may
result in more significant societal change (Dellmuth and
Shyrokykh 2023). Exploring these aspects may help to
further unveil the role of digital environments in the co-
production of sustainability problems and solutions.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11625- 025- 01639-1.
Acknowledgements Anna Hausmann thanks the Mai and Tor Nessling
Foundation for funding supporting this research (Grant number
202200342). Gonzalo Cortés-Capano is grateful to Alexander von
Humboldt Stiftung for the support through a postdoctoral research fel-
lowshipand tothe School of Resource Wisdom of the University of
Jyväskylä.
Author contributions Anna Hausmann, Tuuli Toivonen, and Gonzalo
Cortés-Capano contributed to the study conception and design. Data
collection was performed by Tuomas Väisänen. Material preparation
and analyses were performed by Anna Hausmann with support from
Tuomas Väisänen and Gonzalo Cortés-Capano. The first draft of the
manuscript was written by Anna Hausmann and Gonzalo Cortés-
Capano and all authors commented on previous versions of the manu-
script. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding Open Access funding provided by University of Jyväskylä
(JYU).
Data availability In order to ensure full protection of users’ privacy
and compliance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR
2016/679), raw data used in the study cannot be made publicly avail-
able. Data may be granted by request to the corresponding author, with
permission of all parties involved with the research and in compliance
with GDPR requirements.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Alayza N, Bhandari P, Burns D, Cogswell N, de Zoysa K, Finch M,
Fransen T, González ML, Krishnan N, Langer P, Larsen G, Srouji
J, Warszawski N, Waskow D (2022) COP27: key takeaways and
what’s next. World Resources Institute. Available online: https://
www. wri. org/ insig hts/ cop27- key- outco mes- un- clima te- talks-
sharm- el- sheikh. Accessed 24 Mar 2025
Alsaad A, Alam MdM, Lutfi A (2023) A sensemaking perspective on
the association between social media engagement and pro-envi-
ronment behavioural intention. Technol Soc 72:102201. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techs oc. 2023. 102201
Araujo T, van der Meer TG (2020) News values on social media:
exploring what drives peaks in user activity about organizations
on Twitter. Journalism 21:633–651. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14648
84918 809299
Atkins E (2022) ‘Bigger than Brexit’: exploring right-wing populism
and net-zero policies in the United Kingdom. Energy Res Soc Sci
90:102681. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. erss. 2022. 102681
Austad J (2025) The (dis) information age: from post-truth to post-
postmodernism. Vernon Press, series in sociology. Delaware,
United States. ISBN 979-8-8819-0004-5
Azzimonti M, Fernandes M (2023) Social media networks, fake news,
and polarization. Eur J Polit Econ 76:102256. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. ejpol eco. 2022. 102256
Belaïd F, Al-Sarihi A, Al-Mestneer R (2023) Balancing climate miti-
gation and energy security goals amid converging global energy
crises: the role of green investments. Renew Energy 205:534–542.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. renene. 2023. 01. 083
Boulianne S, Lalancette M, Ilkiw D (2020) “School Strike 4 Cli-
mate”: social media and the international youth protest on climate
change. Media Commun 8:208–218. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17645/
mac. v8i2. 2768
Braun V, Clarke V (2013) Successful qualitative research: a practical
guide for beginners. SAGE, Los Angeles
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

934 Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
Braun V, Clarke V (2019) Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis.
Qual Res Sport Exerc Health 11:589–597. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
21596 76X. 2019. 16288 06
Büscher B (2020) The truth about nature: environmentalism in the
era of post-truth politics and platform capitalism. University of
California Press, Berkeley
Byrne D (2022) A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to
reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Quant 56:1391–1412. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11135- 021- 01182-y
Chadwick A (2017) The hybrid media system: politics and power.
Oxford University Press, Oxford. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ oso/
97801 90696 726. 001. 0001
Chater N, Loewenstein G (2016) The under-appreciated drive for
sense-making. J Econ Behav Organ Thriving through Balance
126:137–154. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jebo. 2015. 10. 016
Chester MV, Miller TR, Muñoz-Erickson TA, Helmrich AM, Iwaniec
DM, McPhearson T, Cook EM, Grimm NB, Markolf SA (2023)
Sensemaking for entangled urban social, ecological, and techno-
logical systems in the Anthropocene. NPJ Urban Sustain 3:1–10.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s42949- 023- 00120-1
Corsi G (2024) Evaluating Twitter’s algorithmic amplification of low-
credibility content: an observational study. EPJ Data Sci 13:1–15.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1140/ epjds/ s13688- 024- 00456-3
Cortés-Capano G, Toivonen T, Soutullo A, Fernández A, Dimitriadis
C, Garibotto-Carton G, Di Minin E (2020) Exploring landown-
ers’ perceptions, motivations and needs for voluntary conserva-
tion in a cultural landscape. People Nat. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/
pan3. 10122
Creswell JW, Creswell JD (2017) Research design: Qualitative, quanti-
tative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE publications
Dellmuth L, Shyrokykh K (2023) Climate change on Twitter: impli-
cations for climate governance research. Wires Clim Change
14:e848. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ wcc. 848
Di Minin E, Fink C, Hausmann A, Kremer J, Kulkarni R (2021) How
to address data privacy concerns when using social media data in
conservation science. Conserv Biol 35:437–446. https:// doi. org/
10. 1111/ cobi. 13708
Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera
P, Brauman KA, Butchart SHM, Chan KMA, Lucas AG, Ichii K,
Liu J, Subramanian SM, Midgley GF, Miloslavich P, Molnár Z,
Obura D, Pfaff A, Polasky S, Purvis A, Razzaque J, Reyers B,
Chowdhury RR, Shin YJ, Visseren-Hamakers I, Willis KJ, Zayas
CN (2019) Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points
to the need for transformative change. Science. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1126/ SCIEN CE. AAX31 00
Djerf-Pierre M (2013) Green metacycles of attention: reassessing the
attention cycles of environmental news reporting 1961–2010.
Public Underst Sci 22:495–512. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09636
62511 426819
Downs A (1972) Up and down with ecology: the “Issue–attention
Cycle.” Agenda setting. Routledge, London
Durá-Alemañ CJ, Moleón M, Pérez-García JM, Serrano D, Sánchez-
Zapata JA (2023) Climate change and energy crisis drive an
unprecedented EU environmental law regression. Conserv Lett
16:e12958. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ conl. 12958
Eberl J-M, Tolochko P, Jost P, Heidenreich T, Boomgaarden HG (2020)
What’s in a post? How sentiment and issue salience affect users’
emotional reactions on Facebook. J Inform Tech Polit 17:48–65.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 19331 681. 2019. 17103 18
European Commission (2022) REPowerEU [WWW Document].
https:// commi ssion. europa. eu/ strat egy- and- policy/ prior ities- 2019-
2024/ europ ean- green- deal/ repow ereu- affor dable- secure- and- susta
inable- energy- europe_ en. Accessed 3.26.24
Failla A, Rossetti G (2024) “I’m in the Bluesky Tonight”: insights from
a year worth of social data. PLoS ONE 19:e0310330. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 03103 30
Falkenberg M, Galeazzi A, Torricelli M, Di Marco N, Larosa F, Sas M,
Mekacher A, Pearce W, Zollo F, Quattrociocchi W, Baronchelli
A (2022) Growing polarization around climate change on social
media. Nat Clim Change 12:1114–1121. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/
s41558- 022- 01527-x
Fink C, Hausmann A, Di Minin E (2020) Online sentiment towards
iconic species. Biol Conserv 241:108289. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. biocon. 2019. 108289
Fuchs C (2020) Communication and capitalism: a critical theory. Uni-
versity of Westminster Press, London
Goldthau A, Tagliapietra S (2022) Energy crisis: five questions that
must be answered in 2023. Nature 612:627–630. https:// doi. org/
10. 1038/ d41586- 022- 04467-w
Goldthau A, Youngs R (2023) The EU energy crisis and a new geopoli-
tics of climate transition. JCMS J Common Mark Stud. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1111/ jcms. 13539
Graham F (2021) COP26: Glasgow Climate Pact signed into history.
Nature. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ d41586- 021- 03464-9
Grossman E (2022) Media and policy making in the digital age. Annu
Rev Polit Sci 25:443–461. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev- polis
ci- 051120- 103422
Hargittai E (2020) Potential biases in big data: omitted voices on Social
Media. Soc Sci Comput Rev 38:10–24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
08944 39318 788322
Harkins WD, Bernardi CL, Esteves V, Steven (2022) Online climate
denialism: eco-systems and echo chambers. The Routledge hand-
book of environment and communication. Routledge, London
Hopke JE (2021) On Twitter, fossil fuel companies’ climate misin-
formation is subtle–here’s what I’m seeing during COP26. The
Conversation. https:// theco nvers ation. com/ on- twitt er- fossil- fuel-
compa nies- clima te- misin forma tion- is- subtle- heres- what- im- see-
ing- durin gcop26- 170196
Hopke JE, Hestres LE (2018) Visualizing the Paris Climate Talks on
Twitter: media and climate stakeholder visual social media during
COP21. Social Media Soc 4:2056305118782687. https:// doi. org/
10. 1177/ 20563 05118 782687
Hussain SA, Razi F, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2023) The perspective of
energy poverty and 1st energy crisis of green transition. Energy
275:127487. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. energy. 2023. 127487
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Eco-
system Services I (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global
assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. https://
doi. org/ 10. 5281/ ZENODO. 35535 79
IPCC (2021) Summary for policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai
P, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, Caud N, Chen Y,
Goldfarb L, Gomis MI, Huang M, Leitzell K, Lonnoy E, Mat-
thews JBR, Maycock TK, Waterfield T, Yelekçi O, Yu R, Zhou
B (eds), Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Con-
tribution of Working Group I to the sixth assessment report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, pp 433–440. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1260/ 09583 05077
81076 194
Jarić I, Correia RA, Bonaiuto M, Brook BW, Courchamp F, Firth JA,
Gaston KJ, Heger T, Jeschke JM, Ladle RJ, Meinard Y, Roberts
DL, Sherren K, Soga M, Soriano-Redondo A, Veríssimo D, Roll
U (2023) Transience of public attention in conservation science.
Front Ecol Environ 21:333–340. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ fee. 2598
Jeong U, Nirmal A, Jha K, Tang SX, Bernard HR, Liu H (2024) User
migration across multiple social media platforms. In: Proceed-
ings of the 2024 SIAM international conference on data mining
(SDM), proceedings. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathe-
matics, pp 436–444. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1137/1. 97816 11978 032. 51
Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Kasper-
son JX, Ratick S (1988) The social amplification of risk: a concep-
tual framework. Risk Anal 8:177–187. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j.
1539- 6924. 1988. tb011 68.x
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

935Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
Kim JW (2018) They liked and shared: effects of social media viral-
ity metrics on perceptions of message influence and behavioral
intentions. Comput Hum Behav 84:153–161. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. chb. 2018. 01. 030
Koundouri P, Alamanos A, Devves S, Landis C, Dellis K (2024) Inno-
vations for holistic and sustainable transitions. Energies 17:5184.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ en172 05184
Kubin E, von Sikorski C (2021) The role of (social) media in politi-
cal polarization: a systematic review. Ann Int Commun Assoc
45:188–206. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23808 985. 2021. 19760 70
La Cava L, Greco S, Tagarelli A (2022) Information consumption
and boundary spanning in decentralized online social networks:
the case of Mastodon users. Online Soc Netw Media 30:100220.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. osnem. 2022. 100220
Lawrence M, Homer-Dixon T, Janzwood S, Rockstöm J, Renn O,
Donges JF (2024) Global polycrisis: the causal mechanisms of
crisis entanglement. Glob Sustain. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ sus.
2024.1
Lee EWJ, Zheng H, Goh DH-L, Lee CS, Theng Y-L (2024) Examining
COVID-19 Tweet diffusion using an integrated social amplifica-
tion of risk and issue–attention cycle framework. Health Commun
39:493–506. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10410 236. 2023. 21702 01
Lehdonvirta V (2022) Cloud empires: how digital platforms are
overtaking the state and how we can regain control. MIT Press,
Cambridge
Linnér B-O, Wibeck V (2019) Sustainability transformations: agents
and drivers across societies, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ 97811 08766 975
Lorenz-Spreen P, Mønsted BM, Hövel P, Lehmann S (2019) Accel-
erating dynamics of collective attention. Nat Commun 10:1759.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41467- 019- 09311-w
Martin M, Islar M (2021) The ‘end of the world’ vs. the ‘end of the
month’: understanding social resistance to sustainability transition
agendas, a lesson from the Yellow Vests in France. Sustain Sci
16:601–614. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11625- 020- 00877-9
Mocanu D, Baronchelli A, Perra N, Gonçalves B, Zhang Q, Vespignani
A (2013) The Twitter of Babel: mapping world languages through
microblogging platforms. PLoS ONE 8:e61981. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1371/ journ al. pone. 00619 81
Mohammad SM, Turney PD (2013) NRC emotion lexicon, vol 2.
National Research Council, Ottawa, p 234
Mouffe C (1999) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Soc
Res 66:745–758
Mouronte-López ML, Gómez Sánchez-Seco J, Benito RM (2024)
Patterns of human and bots behaviour on Twitter conversations
about sustainability. Sci Rep 14:3223. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/
s41598- 024- 52471-z
Muta T, Erdogan M (2023) The global energy crisis pushed fossil
fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022—analysis
[WWW Document]. International Energy Agency. https:// www.
iea. org/ comme ntari es/ the- global- energy- crisis- pushed- fossil- fuel-
consu mption- subsi dies- to- an- all- time- high- in- 2022. Accessed
2.2.24
Park CS (2013) Does Twitter motivate involvement in politics? Tweet-
ing, opinion leadership, and political engagement. Comput Hum
Behav 29:1641–1648. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2013. 01. 044
Pearce W, Niederer S, Özkula SM, Querubín NS (2019) The social
media life of climate change: platforms, publics, and future imagi-
naries. Wiley Interdiscipl Rev Clim Change 10:e569. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1002/ WCC. 569
Pedersen MA, Albris K, Seaver N (2021) The political economy of
attention. Annu Rev Anthropol 50:309–325. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1146/ annur ev- anthro- 101819- 110356
Pörtner H-O, Scholes RJ, Arneth A, Barnes DKA, Burrows MT,
Diamond SE, Duarte CM, Kiessling W, Leadley P, Managi S,
McElwee P, Midgley G, Ngo HT, Obura D, Pascual U, Sankaran
M, Shin YJ, Val AL (2023) Overcoming the coupled climate
and biodiversity crises and their societal impacts. Science
380:eabl4881. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. abl48 81
Pralle SB (2010) Agenda-setting and climate change. Climate change
and political strategy. Routledge, London
Ribeiro FN, Araújo M, Gonçalves P, André Gonçalves M, Ben-
evenuto F (2016) SentiBench—a benchmark comparison of
state-of-the-practice sentiment analysis methods. EPJ Data Sci
5:1–29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1140/ epjds/ s13688- 016- 0085-1
Richardson K, Steffen W, Lucht W, Bendtsen J, Cornell SE, Donges
JF, Drüke M, Fetzer I, Bala G, von Bloh W, Feulner G, Fiedler
S, Gerten D, Gleeson T, Hofmann M, Huiskamp W, Kummu M,
Mohan C, Nogués-Bravo D, Petri S, Porkka M, Rahmstorf S,
Schaphoff S, Thonicke K, Tobian A, Virkki V, Wang-Erlandsson
L, Weber L, Rockström J (2023) Earth beyond six of nine plan-
etary boundaries. Sci Adv 9:eadh2458. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/
sciadv. adh24 58
Sadler N (2021) Fragmented narrative: telling and interpreting sto-
ries in the Twitter age. Routledge, London
Sætre AS, Van de Ven A (2021) Generating theory by abduction.
AMR 46:684–701. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 2019. 0233
Santini RM, Salles D, Tucci G, Ferreira F, Grael F (2020) Making up
audience: media bots and the falsification of the public sphere.
Commun Stud 71:466–487. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10510 974.
2020. 17354 66
Savasta-Kennedy M (2014) The dangers of carbon reduction tunnel
vision. Available at SSRN 2518613. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/
ssrn. 25186 13
Savolainen L, Trilling D, Liotsiou D (2020) Delighting and detest-
ing engagement: emotional politics of junk news. Soc Media
Soc 6:2056305120972037. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 20563 05120
972037
Scoones I (2022) What is environmental degradation, what are its
causes, and how to respond? Institute of Development Studies.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 19088/ IDS. 2022. 065
Segerberg A, Bennett WL (2011) Social Media and the organization
of collective action: using Twitter to explore the ecologies of
two climate change protests. Commun Rev 14:197–215. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10714 421. 2011. 597250
Shackley S, Evar B (2012) Up and down with CCS: the issue–atten-
tion cycle and the political dynamics of decarbonisation. The
social dynamics of carbon capture and storage. Routledge,
London
Stieglitz S, Mirbabaie M, Milde M (2018) Social positions and collec-
tive sense-making in crisis communication. Int J Hum-Comput
Interact 34:328–355. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10447 318. 2018.
14278 30
Swilling M (2013) Economic crisis, long waves and the sustainability
transition: an African perspective. Environ Innov Societal Transit
Econ-Financ Crisis Sustain Transit 6:96–115. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. eist. 2012. 11. 001
Thompson J (2022) A guide to abductive thematic analysis. Qual Rep
27:1410–1421. https:// doi. org/ 10. 46743/ 2160- 3715/ 2022. 5340
Timmermans S, Tavory I (2012) Theory construction in qualitative
research: from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociol
Theory 30:167–186. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07352 75112 457914
Toivonen T, Heikinheimo V, Fink C, Hausmann A, Hiippala T, Järv O,
Tenkanen H, Di Minin E (2019) Social media data for conserva-
tion science: a methodological overview. Biol Conserv 233:298–
315. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biocon. 2019. 01. 023
Tokita CK, Guess AM, Tarnita CE (2021) Polarized information eco-
systems can reorganize social networks via information cascades.
Proc Natl Acad Sci 118:e2102147118. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1073/
pnas. 21021 47118
Tucker JA, Guess A, Barberá P, Vaccari C, Siegel A, Sanovich S, Stu-
kal D, Nyhan B (2018) Social media, political polarization, and
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

936 Sustainability Science (2025) 20:919–936
political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature. In:
Political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the
scientific literature (March 19, 2018)
Väisänen T, Sirkiä S, Hiippala T, Järv O, Toivonen T (2021)
tweetsearcher: a Python tool to download Tweets using academic
research credentials. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5281/ zenodo. 47671 70
Väisänen T, Järv O, Toivonen T, Hiippala T (2022) Mapping urban
linguistic diversity with social media and population register data.
Comput Environ Urban Syst 97:101857. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
compe nvurb sys. 2022. 101857
van Dyk S (2022) Post-truth, the future of democracy and the public
sphere. Theory Cult Soc 39:37–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02632
76422 11035 14
van Dijck J, Poell T (2013) Understanding social media logic. Media
Commun 1:2–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17645/ mac. v1i1. 70
Van Rossum G, Drake FL (2009) Python 3 Reference Manual. Cre-
ateSpace, Scotts Valley, CA
von Homeyer I, Oberthür S, Dupont C (2022) Implementing the Euro-
pean Green Deal during the evolving energy crisis. JCMS J Com-
mon Mark Stud 60:125–136. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jcms. 13397
Vrana V, Kydros D, Kotzaivazoglou I, Pechlivanaki I (2023) EU Citi-
zens’ Twitter discussions of the 2022–23 energy crisis: a content
and sentiment analysis on the verge of a daunting winter. Sustain-
ability 15:1322. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su150 21322
Wang W, Guo L (2018) Framing genetically modified mosquitoes in
the online news and Twitter: intermedia frame setting in the issue–
attention cycle. Public Underst Sci 27:937–951. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 09636 62518 799564
Wang R, Liu W, Gao S (2016) Hashtags and information virality in
networked social movement: examining hashtag co-occurrence
patterns. Online Inf Rev 40:850–866. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/
OIR- 12- 2015- 0378
Weick KE (1993) The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the
Mann Gulch disaster. Adm Sci Q 38:628–652. https:// doi. org/ 10.
3280/ SO2008- 002009
Weick KE (1994) Chapter21 from sensemaking in organizations.
Chapter21 from sensemaking in organizations. Princeton Uni-
versity Press, Princeton, pp 533–552. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1515/
97806 91229 270- 022
Zhao K, Wulder MA, Hu T, Bright R, Wu Q, Qin H, Li Y, Toman E,
Mallick B, Zhang X, Brown M (2019) Detecting change-point,
trend, and seasonality in satellite time series data to track abrupt
changes and nonlinear dynamics: a Bayesian ensemble algorithm.
Remote Sens Environ 232:111181. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. rse.
2019. 04. 034
Zhou K, Wilson T, Starbird K, Spiro ES (2023) Spotlight Tweets: a
lens for exploring attention dynamics within online sensemaking
during crisis events. Trans Soc Comput 6(1–2):33. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1145/ 35772 13
Żuk P, Żuk P (2022) National energy security or acceleration of tran-
sition? Energy policy after the war in Ukraine. Joule 6:709–712.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. joule. 2022. 03. 009
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com