Over the course of 2025, mainstream news media around the world reported less on climate change than in previous years. Global coverage fell by approximately 14% compared to 2024, and by nearly 40% since its peak in 2021. This marked decline has not occurred because the climate crisis has eased. On the contrary, atmospheric CO? concentrations in 2025 reached their highest levels on record.
While it might seem plausible to assume that lower levels of reporting reflect waning public interest, this explanation does not hold. News audiences have remained highly engaged with climate-related news.
These disconnects raise a troubling question: why is climate change disappearing from the news agenda just as its impacts intensify and public interest remains high?
The Audience Hasn’t Tuned Out
A common assumption is that audiences have grown tired of climate coverage. This is somewhat understandable: climate news is often framed in bleak terms, with few positive or emotionally uplifting stories reaching headlines. Yet the evidence suggests otherwise.
Reader interest in climate journalism grew in 2025. According to the Climate Editor of The New York Times, audiences care deeply about the impacts of climate change on people and ecosystems, and show strong interest in the policies and solutions being debated to address it. Reader engagement with climate journalism at the paper increased over the year.
More broadly, public understanding of climate change, engagement with climate news, and attitudes towards climate politics have remained remarkably stable since 2022. In 2024, around 50% of people across eight geographically diverse countries reported reading, seeing, or hearing climate change news at least weekly. In France, this figure rose to 60%. Across these countries, more than two-thirds of people reported being concerned about climate change, this level that has barely shifted since 2021. This plateau has led some scholars to describe a phenomenon of “climate perception inertia,” where concern remains high but does not increase in line with escalating climate impacts.
However, stable concern does not explain the decline in climate coverage. While demand for climate news has not surged dramatically, it has remained consistently high, making the drop in information availability through news media difficult to justify.
An Editorial Retreat from Climate Coverage
If demand is not declining and climate-related events are occurring at unprecedented rates, the drop in coverage points to a different cause: a reduction in editorial supply.
This does not reflect a shortage of events or evidence; in fact, the opposite is true. Instead, it reflects newsroom decisions about what to prioritise. This dynamic is particularly visible in television news, where limited airtime, competition from other major crises (such as wars and geopolitical instability), and the difficulty of fitting a slow-moving, complex issue into short news formats have led climate change to be deprioritised or stripped from broader reporting, even when it is directly relevant.
Why News Media Still Matters
In today’s fragmented media landscape, shaped by social media, podcasts, documentaries, and influencers, it might be tempting to assume that traditional news has lost its relevance. Yet research consistently shows that news media remains the primary source of climate information, ahead of documentaries and social platforms.
Around 50% of people say they trust news outlets, while 74% say they trust scientists. This places journalism in a powerful intermediary role, translating scientific knowledge into public understanding. News coverage shapes not only what people know, but how urgent an issue feels and whether it appears solvable.
People are especially drawn to climate reporting that feels personally relevant, such as stories linking climate change to extreme weather, local impacts, jobs, health, and everyday life.
Surveys show that many already believe extreme weather is worsening and climate risks are rising. Without consistent and relevant media reinforcement, however, these perceptions risk fading into the background noise of competing crises.
Crucially, public concern is closely tied to engagement, advocacy, and activism, all of this can influence political will and policy outcomes.
The Risks of Going Quiet
Reduced climate coverage carries real consequences. When an issue receives less media attention, audiences may assume it is becoming less important, less urgent, or even under control. In the case of climate change, this perception would be dangerously misleading.
News media also plays a critical role in countering misinformation and preventing scepticism from filling the gaps left by silence. While journalism can inadvertently spread doubt when poorly framed, the greater risk at this moment is absence. Climate disasters are no longer isolated tragedies; they are persistent reminders of a warming world, leaving an indelible mark on communities and public consciousness. When coverage fails to reflect this reality, it creates a distorted sense of normality.
A Critical Moment for Climate Journalism
With 2026 projected to be among the four warmest years in recorded history, climate change should not be treated as a niche or secondary issue. It underpins economic stability, public health, migration, food security, and global politics.
When news media retreats from climate coverage, it retreats from its responsibility to reflect the realities shaping our future. The climate crisis is not slowing down. The question is whether journalism will rise to meet it or continue to look away.