Delegitimising climate activists by framing them as ‘cults’ or ‘religious’

In 2020, President Donald Trump called out climate change activists and to “reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse” at the World Economic Forum in Davos and boasted about the US being the largest producer of oil. Trump’s rejection of climate activism and the demonization of climate activists shouldn’t be surprising, considering his formal withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement earlier this year (having announced the withdrawal from his first term in 2017) (Popli, 2025). While Trump’s comment on climate change activists seems exaggerated, it’s part of a bigger issue surrounding the framing of these activists by politicians and the media.

Take Greta Thunberg and how she is being portrayed by the media as an example. Thunberg has become a household name in terms of pushing for climate activism and was named Time’s person of the year in 2019 when she started the “School Strike for Climate” and camped outside the Swedish Parliament (Arbugaeva, 2019). Her unwavering determination for this cause has caused her to be named a ‘prophet’ of ‘climatism’ (Joffe, 2020) , “ascetic saint” (Grant, 2019) or a “false prophet” (Meade, 2020). One of the primary concerns of this time of framing Thunberg as a cult or religious leader can have a negative impact when it comes to the perception of her advocacy and could alienate potential allies therefore limiting their message and reach. Bashir et al. (2013) found that negative stereotypes tied to activists like feminists or environmentalists become associated with “hostile militancy and unconventionality or eccentricity” and people tended to avoid being associated with them or listen to their concerns. 

By framing climate activists as cult members can create an “us vs. them” mentality among the public mentality.  This framing can alienate or discourage potential allies as they could be deterred by negative associations if climate activists are seen as ‘cult-like’. Studies have shown that increased hostility towards climate activists as ‘eccentric’ and ‘militant’ can create a barrier when it comes to spreading their message (Bashir et al. 2013).  This hostility can isolate activists and perhaps hinder and further discredit their efforts. This framing can be seen in a study by Lewis and Vignoles (2023) through an analysis of online comments on articles about climate activists. The research showed that the commenters disseminated representations of climate activists as “immoral and incompetent” and commenters stigmatised activists as “low value burdens on society”. Jaspal et al. (2016) conducted a study on the press coverage of Australian debates on climate change from 1990, 1997 and 2006 and found that the main themes were the usage of greenhouse metaphors and religious metaphors. Jaspal et al's research showed how religious metaphors used by the media constructed climate skeptics as ‘real’ scientists and negatively framed activists and scientists as if they were part of a climate cult. This harms activists’ urgent calls for action and could just be dismissed as cult-y hippies and not listen to their legitimate concerns that are based on scientific evidence. In Germany, the populist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) are against governmental action on climate change and claim that Greta Thunberg is “the face of a cover, pre-planned public relations campaign run by the international left” (Zimmerman, 2020). Zimmerman also points out a documentary filmed by an AfD politician interviewing FFF (Fridays For Future) protesters which deliberately casts the protesters in a negative light by asking them questions, focusing on details like beer bottles and handbags but not showing the public speeches from the protest. 

In Romania, the Minister of Energy, Sebastian Burduja, was “attacked” by Greenpeace protesters during an official event by taking over the stage and subsequently removed by security (Adevărul, 2025; Stiripesurse, 2025). Events like these can portray climate activists in a negative light with the public and other policymakers even if their methods draw attention to urgent matters. Actions like these can reinforce the narrative that climate activists are ‘militant’ and ‘eccentric’ as mentioned in Bashir et al. (2013) and can erode their credibility making it harder to have their voices heard.

But what does the media have to say about the religion of climate activism? In a 2022 analysis conducted by the ISD (Institute for Strategic Dialogue) collected and analyzed 8,698 media stories from alternative and mainstream outlets in English, German and French (Bundzten, 2023). The findings showed that 35% of alternative sources and 8% of mainstream sources contained at least one keyword relating ‘anti-climate activism’ narrative and the remaining 65% of alternative outlets are calling against the need for climate action. The ISD found that one of the most prominent narratives with 499 headlines was the ‘climate hysterics’ narrative with headlines calling climate activists “eco-zealots”, “climate fanatics” and “doomsday cult” by alternative and right wing outlets. As mentioned before, these types of framings by the media can have an unfavorable impact on climate activists and their message and people may not want to associate with a “doomsday cult” even if their messaging is genuine. 

As shown in Germany with the AfD, this negative framing can create a divisive political atmosphere in which climate activism is seen through a partisan lens. Lewis and Vignoles (2023) point out how climate activists are considered “left liberal remainers”. Some politicians have been very vocal against climate change and demonized climate activists such as Trump, Geert Wilders (Corder, 2023) and Calin Georgescu (Parsons, 2024) to name a few. Zawadzksi et al. (2020) found that climate beliefs can be influenced by political leaders that people support or oppose and the influence political leaders have over climate beliefs “depends not only on the extent to which people support the leader but also on the status the leader holds within a group”. Zawadzki et al’s findings also showed that environmental based political leadership in the USA is a “powerful force for shifting public engagement with climate change” and Trump’s presidency may have shifted the American public’s beliefs on climate change. These examples show how politicians can be a driving force on the negative framing of climate change and activists and further ‘other’ them in the political landscape. 

These challenges faced by climate activists can also impact the trust in science and scientists and can create skepticism towards climate science therefore, making the public less willing to listen to science. These negative portrayals of climate activists can affect their efforts spreading their messaging especially in polarized political environments. Moreover, politicians who take an anti-climate change stance can also affect climate change activists and hinder and diminish their messaging as ‘fanatical’. Even if the public may not listen to climate change activists, it is still important to pay attention to the science (which is real unlike what some politicians might say) behind climate change as shown by organizations like NASA and NORA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).