While public and media discourse currently shows crumbling support for ambitious climate measures in many places, the gap between set climate targets and actual policy action is widening once again. But what is driving this headwind, and how can effective climate communication address it constructively?
This post is part of the series “Studies of the month” in cooperation with klimafakten.de. In the series, members of the climate communication lab (PI: Prof. Dr. Michael Brüggemann) share their expertise on noteworthy recent studies.
Which questions do these studies address?
To understand what could help move climate action forward again, we discuss two current research papers that examine discursive headwinds and ask: Under what conditions do policy measures retroactively falter on a political level? And when are they blocked from being adopted in the first place?
Anisimova and Patterson (2025) investigate the specific circumstances under which climate protection policies in various OECD countries become controversial and politically contested after they have already been officially adopted.
Grünwald and Patterson (2025) focus on a very concrete example: the debate over the highway speed limit in Germany. They note that the discourse surrounding climate protection measures is generally highly polarized, and they examine more closely how this polarization translated into politically organized opposition to the proposed speed limit.
What methodology was used, and why is it reliable?
Both studies utilize qualitative social science methods to gain a deep and precise insight into the underlying dynamics.
Anisimova and Patterson (2025) work with what is known as a “fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis” (fsQCA). In this approach, they systematically code diverse sources such as legislative texts, political speeches, and media reports before subjecting them to a mathematical-statistical procedure. In this way, it is possible to precisely analyze which combinations of factors cause climate protection measures to retroactively falter.
The study analyzes a total of 27 case examples of measures from different countries in the OECD, a group of 38 wealthy democratic nations with free-market economies. The cross-national sample allows the results to be generalized to a certain degree, even if they are not as robust as a truly large-scale quantitative study would permit.
Grünwald and Patterson (2025), on the other hand, utilize the process tracing method. This method serves to explain causal relationships within a single case by reconstructing the exact sequence of events and relevant chains of cause and effect.
In this specific case, the authors reconstruct step by step how high socio-political polarization progressively culminated in organized opposition to the proposed speed limit.
Various data sources were drawn upon for this analysis as well: In addition to news articles and entries from online debates, political speeches were factored into the evaluation.
What are the core findings, and why are they relevant for climate communication?
Anisimova and Patterson (2025) note: “Above all, the combination of how challenging and unfair a political measure is perceived to be explains how controversially it is discussed” (p. 4).
However, there are other factors that significantly contribute to climate protection measures retroactively faltering, even after their legal adoption.
According to the two authors, these are primarily a pronounced socio-political polarization in a country, as well as a fundamental lack of concern about climate change within parts of the population.
These two conditions amplify societal debates over whether a political course of action that has already been decided—such as the introduction of a CO₂ tax or the coal phase-out—is appropriate and legitimate at all.
Grünwald and Patterson (2025) dive a bit deeper into the matter in their process analysis and conclude that it was primarily a deep-seated skepticism toward the intentions of the speed limit proponents that gave momentum to the actual opposition.
At the core of this skepticism were essentially two argumentative patterns: On the one hand, a national speed limit was framed as relatively insignificant in the context of global greenhouse gas emissions, allowing the measure to quickly be labeled as symbolic politics.
Louisa Pröschel, a communication researcher at the University of Hamburg, notes: “It is quite shocking how targeted disinformation was deployed here by certain media outlets and political actors to downplay the significance of the speed limit.”
Political actors drive ideological contestation
On the other hand, the arguments for the speed limit were branded as ideologically motivated opportunism. According to this narrative, proponents deliberately exploited the general mood of crisis (specifically the energy scarcity resulting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine).
Regarding this, Grünwald and Patterson observe: “Generally, the prevailing perception was that proponents of the speed limit exploit every opportunity to put their topic on the agenda” (2025, p. 6).
In addition, the rhetorical construction that the measure massively restricts individual freedom played a serious role. On this emotional foundation, the opposition succeeded in portraying the speed limit in public discourse as illegitimate and fundamentally anti-democratic.
A particularly fascinating detail of the work by Grünwald and Patterson (2025) is the following: Strategic political actors and traditional news media utilized these ideological and abstract arguments far more frequently than the citizens themselves who participated in online discussions.
Communication scientist Hendrik Meyer from the University of Hamburg comments: “Social media has gotten a negative reputation here, but in my experience, it is just as often political actors and ‘traditional’ media that fuel the polarization.”
In digital civil society discourse, a completely pragmatic component played at least an equally important role instead: the perceived or real dependence on one’s own car to earn a daily living.
Here is the translation for the final section, keeping your exact paragraph structure intact:
What can be concretely derived from the study for practical application?
Although ambitious climate protection naturally represents a societal challenge, politics can counter steering through compensatory measures—and, above all, regulate the distribution of burdens in a socially fair manner.
When such cushioning measures exist, it is the central task of climate communication to convey them clearly. This is usually more successful through concrete, realistic examples—such as showing which household types are relieved to what extent—instead of limiting oneself to referencing the abstract fairness of theoretical economic models.
In heated debates over concrete laws—such as the speed limit or the Building Energy Act—it becomes clear time and time again how strongly targeted disinformation impacts societal debate. Michael Brüggemann, Professor of Climate Communication at the University of Hamburg, notes: “Fighting disinformation theme-specifically, strategically, and quickly remains one of the most important pillars of communication work.”
Another focus should be on consistently making the debate more objective. Many measures ultimately only slightly regulate behavior; thus, a speed limit is hardly particularly “freedom-depriving,” but rather a statutory regulation like any other in road traffic. It is therefore worthwhile to rationally emphasize that the actual “costs” for most people amount to a loss of only a few minutes during longer journeys.
Last but not least, it should be continuously communicated why these measures are necessary and purposeful, meaning: Why can a seemingly small percentage contribution have enormous leverage in absolute terms for the affected sector? In the case of the speed limit, the proposal under discussion would have led to a CO₂ reduction of around 4.6 percent across the entire transport sector. Thus, the argument that the measure is only ideologically motivated is also indirectly invalidated.
Further reading
Tips for fact-checking: https://www.klimafakten.de/kommunikation/studie-des-monats-052026-was-fact-checking-leisten-kann-und-was-nicht
…and for dealing with misinformation: https://www.klimafakten.de/kommunikation/studie-des-monats-092025-wie-sich-falschinformation-wirksam-bekaempfen-laesst
The studies
Anisimova, K. V., & Patterson, J. J. (2025). Unraveling the conditions for post-adoption contestation over hard climate policy in OECD countries. Npj Climate Action, 4(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-025-00270-1
Grünwald, L., & Patterson, J. (2025). Roadblocks of polarization: Interpretive mechanisms of opposition to a speed limit policy on German highways. Energy Research & Social Science, 122, 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2025.104009