Visual digital intermediaries and global climate communication: Is climate change still a distant problem on YouTube?

country-language queries. Each cell shows a pair of queries, and the colour indicates over- lap, from no overlap (blue) to complete overlap (red). The clusters correspond to queries with the same language. The five largest are English (79 countries), French (35), Arabic (24), Span- ish (21), and Portuguese (10). Similar patterns remain when considering fewer and more results. Importantly, higher ranked results show the least diversification (see supplementary PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318338 April 8, 2025 14/ 23

considering comments and likes. The previous section already established that fresh actors beyond the conventional climate communicators do appear in top rankings, but that the sheer presence of fresh channels does not in itself imply a break with conventional content. Here, probing the channel side confirms that some channel types do tend to include arctic themes more than others. However, this is not predictive: it still varies with the context, even in the case of the professional media chan- nels. Moreover, in many cases, several different channel types together manifest the presence of the arctic repertoire at the top. Fig 4 shows the distribution of channel types with arctic PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318338 April 8, 2025 15/ 23

PLOS ONE Visual digital intermediaries and global climate communication 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Fig 2. Platform’s geographical diversification. Value 1 corresponds to the case where results obtained from a pair of country-language queries are identical. Value 0 corresponds to query results with no common videos. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318338.g002 content (with at least 5 top-ranked videos) in top results across contexts. Each value corre- sponds to a language cluster and distributes from 0 (if all channel types show the same frac- tion of videos with arctic themes) to 1 (if only one channel type shows them). The median is low, at .52, tending towards distributed contribution. Given the small number of observa- tions, these results at best demonstrate a random variability: at a global level some channel PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318338 April 8, 2025 16/ 23

PLOS ONE Visual digital intermediaries and global climate communication 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Fig 3. Users’ engagement diversification. Value 0 indicates no diversification, that is, all channel types returned by queries in a given language obtain the same attention expressed in terms of views. Value 1 indicates that one channel type receives all the views for a given language. The plot shows the distribution of engagement diversification over languages. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318338.g003 types contribute more than others to the prominence of arctic themes, but the respective sets of top-ranked results are too small to draw conclusions. Finally, intriguingly, exploratory analysis suggests that the presence of arctic themes seems to intensify at the top. We extended beyond the original research design outlined earlier to analyse top and extended rankings using the Resnet50 pre-trained classifier from the pytorch Python package. The results indicate that polar bear prevalence roughly doubles in top 50 results as compared to top 400 results, across differently profiled contexts such as US/English, France/French, Germany/German, and Portugal/Portuguese. This analysis can only be sug- gestive, since only a selection of videos was classified and our tests show that the pre-trained classifier scored low in recall for the polar bear theme. Nevertheless, it does raise the tantalis- ing possibility that this classic visual climate repertoire correlates with video rank prominence (see supplementary material: top-ranked results, trends in arctic content).

6 Discussion This study addresses the role of digital intermediaries in online climate discourse in light of the green ghetto. To investigate the expectation that a delimited circle of speakers, stories and styles would become less predominant, it is not enough to consider what climate communi- cators post. We contend that the role of digital intermediaries requires dedicated attention, and argue for adopting a comparative sensibility. To this end, we analysed how a major global visual platform, YouTube Search, articulates climate change to audiences across the world. The PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318338 April 8, 2025 17/ 23

PLOS ONE Visual digital intermediaries and global climate communication 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Fig 4. Channels’ content diversification. Value 0 corresponds to the case where all channel types for a given lan- guage contain exactly the same fraction of videos with arctic themes. Value 1 corresponds to the case where only one channel type contains videos with arctic themes. The plot shows the distribution of content diversification over languages. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318338.g004 findings invite three key reflections about the role of YouTube as global digital intermediary in online climate communication in general, and the persistence of a green ghetto in particular. First, the study confirms that global YouTube Search does not dramatically dissolve a (Global North) green ghetto. To a large extent, the top results sustain the status quo, albeit with some modification. Keywords associated with alternative climate discourses would likely yield different patterns in aggregate, and more varied patterns across contexts. Still, these results bear out at global scale earlier findings about climate communication on English- language YouTube. In this mainstream rendition, it is clear that visual climate repertoires from the mass media era are perpetuated online. The findings underscore the stickiness of the arctic distancing frame as established visual shorthand for climate issues [31,80]. Both old and new climate communicators contribute to its persistence. Climate communication ‘usual suspects’ such as the news media are still

prominent in top results, and continue to perpetuate the arctic distancing frame. Fresh actors in the form of user-led and popular science channels widen the circle, but also sustain the distancing theme. We note that the persistence may at times be less about what is actually depicted and more about other functions. For example, the use of these visual themes may be more about pursuing engaging motifs such as animals to anticipate algorithmic visibility or about borrowing legacy footage and frames modelled on professional media as authoritative actors [78]. Second, YouTube’s platform-side language clusters (as observed through the API) create uneven conditions of visibility for relevance in the form of local channels and content. Top results in the global language clusters consistently present audiences with channels from the PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318338 April 8, 2025 18/ 23

PLOS ONE Visual digital intermediaries and global climate communication Global North (with Portuguese as a key exception). They focus geographically disparate audi- ences — be they in Canada, Cameroon, and Haiti, or in Angola, Mozambique and Portugal — on renditions of the issue primarily sourced in one place, such as, respectively, France or Brazil. What audiences make of this is less clear. This study cannot discern the resonance, in part because the engagement metrics data for each video is only given in its global form. It is possible that high engagement in one audience obscures the lack of it in another, or that geographically remote channels are still experienced as relevant due to shared historical or media hub connections. Another possibility is that no matter the starting point, the arrange- ments inadvertently create new publics for old visual repertoires, as they are reinterpreted and incorporated into local repertoires, possibly with critical overtures [81]. More contextualising approaches that can consider for example full video sequences and comments are needed to sort such questions out. Finally, it is crucial to address how global platforms operate in different contexts. The find- ings underscore the need to attend to differences not only across platforms, but also within them. Studies of online climate communication typically build on the US context and/or English-language data, and the external validity is often assumed. Yet, this can be misleading. In this case, there were clear continuities between global YouTube Search contexts, but also

significant exceptions. For example, US/English YouTube was close to the norm and to other contexts such as India/English. However, it was far from the profile of other language groups with sizeable audiences, such as Hindi and Portuguese. Being too quick to assume one size fits all risks overlooking local narratives [54], and ascribing local circumstances too broadly. In order to understand the role of digital intermediaries in online climate communication, we need to think beyond the notion that global digital intermediaries have only one face. Supporting information SI1. Supplementary material. This document provides coding schemes for channels and visual themes, the definition of the measures used in this article, and additional summaries of top-ranked API query results. (PDF) Author contributions Conceptualization: Alexandra Segerberg, Matteo Magnani. Data curation: Alexandra Segerberg, Matteo Magnani. Formal analysis: Alexandra Segerberg, Matteo Magnani. Funding acquisition: Alexandra Segerberg, Matteo Magnani. Investigation: Alexandra Segerberg, Matteo Magnani. Methodology: Alexandra Segerberg, Matteo Magnani. Project administration: Alexandra Segerberg, Matteo Magnani. Resources: Alexandra Segerberg, Matteo Magnani. Software: Matteo Magnani. Validation: Alexandra Segerberg, Matteo Magnani. Visualization: Alexandra Segerberg, Matteo Magnani. PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318338 April 8, 2025 19/ 23

PLOS ONE Visual digital intermediaries and global climate communication Writing – original draft: Alexandra Segerberg, Matteo Magnani. Writing – review & editing: Alexandra Segerberg, Matteo Magnani. References 1. Corner A, Webster R, Teriete C. Climate visuals: Seven principles for visual climate change communication; 2015 2. Corner A, Clarke J. Talking climate. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-46744-3 3. León B, Negredo S, Erviti MC. Social engagement with climate change: Principles for effective visual representation on social media. Clim Policy. 2022;22(8):976–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2077292 4. Slocum R. Polar bears and energy-efficient lightbulbs: Strategies to bring climate change home. Environ Plan D. 2004;22(3):413–38. https://doi.org/10.1068/d378 5. Anderson A. Effects of social media use on climate change opinion, knowledge, and behavior. In: Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science. Oxford University Press; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001 6. Pearce W, Niederer S, Özkula SM, Sánchez Querubín N. The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries. WIREs Clim Change. 2018;10(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.569 7. Wang S, Corner A, Chapman D, Markowitz E. Public engagement with climate imagery in a changing digital landscape. WIREs Clim Change. 2018;9(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.509 8. Schäfer M. The internet of natural things: Environmental communication online and in social media.

In: The handbook of international trends in environmental communication; 2021. p. 50–69. 9. Jürgens P, Stark B. The power of default on Reddit: A general model to measure the influence of information intermediaries. Policy Internet. 2017;9(4):395–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.166 10. Kleis Nielsen R, Ganter SA. Kleis Nielsen R, Ganter SA. Dealing with digital intermediaries: A case study of the relations between publishers and platforms. New Media Soc. 2017;20(4):1600–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817701318 11. Rieder B, Matamoros-Fernández A, Coromina Ò. From ranking algorithms to ‘ranking cultures’. Convergence: Int J Res New Media Technol. 2018;24(1):50–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517736982 12. Guenther L, Meyer H, Kleinen-von Königslöw K, Brüggemann M. A distant threat? The framing of climate futures across four countries. Environ Commun. 2023;17(7):775–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2023.2253500 13. Hase V, Mahl D, Schäfer MS, Keller TR. Climate change in news media across the globe: An automated analysis of issue attention and themes in climate change coverage in 10 countries (2006–2018). Global Environ Change. 2021;70:102353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102353 14. Painter J, Schäfer M. Global similarities and persistent differences: A survey of comparative studies on climate change communication. Clim Change Media; 2018. p. 39–58. 15. Wessler H, Wozniak A, Hofer L, Lück J. Global multimodal news frames on climate change. Int J Press/Polit. 2016;21(4):423–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161216661848

16. Pearce W, Özkula SM, Greene AK, Teeling L, Bansard JS, Omena JJ, et al. Visual cross-platform analysis: Digital methods to research social media images. Inform Commun Soc. 2018;23(2):161–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2018.1486871 17. Munger K, Phillips J. Right-wing YouTube: A supply and demand perspective. Int J Press/Polit. 2020;27(1):186–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220964767 18. Graber DA. Seeing is remembering: How visuals contribute to learning from television news. J Commun. 1990;40(3):134–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1990.tb02275.x 19. Hameleers M, Powell TE, Van Der Meer TGLA, Bos L. A picture paints a thousand lies? The effects and mechanisms of multimodal disinformation and rebuttals disseminated via social media. Polit Commun. 2020;37(2):281–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1674979 20. Powell TE, Boomgaarden HG, De Swert K, de Vreese CH. Framing fast and slow: A dual processing account of multimodal framing effects. Media Psychology. 2018;22(4):572–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2018.1476891 21. Joffe H. The power of visual material: Persuasion, emotion and identification. Diogenes (Engl Ed). 2008;55(1):84–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0392192107087919 PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318338 April 8, 2025 20/ 23

PLOS ONE Visual digital intermediaries and global climate communication 22. Leiserowitz A. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Change. 2006;77(1–2):45–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9 23. Olesen T. Greta Thunberg’s iconicity: Performance and co-performance in the social media ecology. New Media Soc. 2020;24(6):1325–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820975416 24. Maes A. The visual divide. Nat Clim Change. 2017;7(4):231–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3251 25. O’Neill SJ, Smith N. Climate change and visual imagery. WIREs Clim Change. 2013;5(1):73–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.249 26. O’Neill SJ. Image matters: Climate change imagery in US, UK and Australian newspapers. Geoforum. 2013;49:10–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.030 27. Doyle J. Picturing the Clima(c)tic: Greenpeace and the representational politics of climate change communication. Sci Cult. 2007;16(2):129–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430701368938 28. Hansen A, Machin D. Visually branding the environment: Climate change as a marketing opportunity. Discourse Stud. 2008;10(6):777–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608098200 29. Born D. Bearing witness? Polar Bears as icons for climate change communication in national geographic. Environ Commun. 2018;13(5):649–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1435557 30. León B, Erviti MC. Science in pictures: Visual representation of climate change in Spain’s television news. Publ Underst Sci. 2015;24(2):183–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513500196 PMID: 24013276

31. O’Neill S. More than meets the eye: A longitudinal analysis of climate change imagery in the print media. Clim Change. 2019;163(1):9–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02504-8 32. Smith NW, Joffe H. Climate change in the British press: The role of the visual. Journal of Risk Research. 2009;12(5):647–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802586512 33. Brügger A, Dessai S, Devine-Wright P, Morton TA, Pidgeon NF. Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nat Clim Change. 2015;5(12):1031–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2760 34. Hart PS, Feldman L. The impact of climate change-related imagery and text on public opinion and behavior change. Sci Commun. 2016;38(4):415–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016655357 35. McDonald RI, Chai HY, Newell BR. Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: An integrative review. J Environ Psychol. 2015;44:109–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.003 36. Duan R, Takahashi B, Zwickle A. Abstract or concrete? The effect of climate change images on people’s estimation of egocentric psychological distance. Publ Underst Sci. 2019;28(7):828–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519865982 PMID: 31359830 37. Metag J, Schäfer MS, Füchslin T, Barsuhn T, Kleinen-von Königslöw K. Perceptions of climate change imagery: Evoked salience and self-efficacy in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Sci Commun. 2016;38(2):197–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016635181 38. O’Neill SJ, Hulme M. An iconic approach for representing climate change. Global Environ Change.

2009;19(4):402–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.004 39. O’Neill SJ, Boykoff M, Niemeyer S, Day SA. On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Global Environ Change. 2013;23(2):413–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.006 40. Chapman DA, Corner A, Webster R, Markowitz EM. Climate visuals: A mixed methods investigation of public perceptions of climate images in three countries. Global Environ Change. 2016;41:172–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.003 41. Petheram L, Stacey N, Fleming A. Future sea changes: Indigenous women’s preferences for adaptation to climate change on South Goulburn Island, Northern Territory (Australia). Clim Dev. 2014;7(4):339–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.951019 42. Degeling D, Koolen R. Communicating climate change to a local but diverse audience: On the positive impact of locality framing. Environ Commun. 2021;16(2):243–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1998177 43. Goel S, Anderson A, Hofman J, Watts DJ. The structural virality of online diffusion. Manage Sci. 2016;62(1):180–96. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2158 44. Hautea S, Parks P, Takahashi B, Zeng J. Showing They Care (Or Don’t): Affective publics and ambivalent climate activism on TikTok. Soc Media + Soc. 2021;7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211012344 45. Cho J, Ahmed S, Hilbert M, Liu B, Luu J. Do search algorithms endanger democracy? An experimental investigation of algorithm effects on political polarization. J Broadcast Electron Media. 2020;64(2):150–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1757365

46. Spartz JT, Su LY-F, Griffin R, Brossard D, Dunwoody S. YouTube, social norms and perceived salience of climate change in the American mind. Environ Commun. 2015;11(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1047887 PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318338 April 8, 2025 21/ 23

PLOS ONE Visual digital intermediaries and global climate communication 47. Yang T, Peng Y. The importance of trending topics in the gatekeeping of social media news engagement: A natural experiment on Weibo. Commun Res. 2020;49(7):994–1015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220933729 48. Pan B, Hembrooke H, Joachims T, Lorigo L, Gay G, Granka L. In Google we trust: Users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance. J Comput-Med Commun. 2007;12(3):801–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x 49. Silverstein C, Marais H, Henzinger M, Moricz M. Analysis of a very large web search engine query log. SIGIR Forum. 1999;33(1):6–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/331403.331405 50. Mittelstadt B. Auditing for transparency in content personalization systems. Int J Commun. 2016;10:12. 51. Sandvig C, Hamilton K, Karahalios K, Langbort C. Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. Seattle; 2014. 52. Ulloa R, Richter AC, Makhortykh M, Urman A, Kacperski CS. Representativeness and face-ism: Gender bias in image search. New Media Soc. 2024;26(6):3541–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221100699 PMID: 38774557 53. Hussein E, Juneja P, Mitra T. Measuring misinformation in video search platforms: An audit study on YouTube. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact. 2020;4(CSCW1):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392854 54. Makhortykh M, Urman A, Ulloa R. Hey, Google, is it what the Holocaust looked like? First Monday. 2021. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v26i10.11562 55. Puschmann C. Beyond the bubble: Assessing the diversity of political search results. Dig J.

2018;7(6):824–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1539626 56. Möller J, Trilling D, Helberger N, van Es B. Do not blame it on the algorithm: An empirical assessment of multiple recommender systems and their impact on content diversity. Inform Commun Soc. 2018;21(7):959–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2018.1444076 57. Lucas D. Introna, Helen Nissenbaum. Shaping the web: Why the politics of search engines matters. Inform Soc. 2000;16(3):169–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240050133634 58. Trielli D, Diakopoulos N. Search as news curator. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems; 2019. p. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300683 59. Li N, Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. Channeling science information seekers’ attention? A content analysis of top-ranked vs. lower-ranked sites in Google. J Comput-Mediat Commun. 2013;19(3):562–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12043 60. Mejova Y, Gracyk T, Robertson R. Googling for abortion: Search engine mediation of abortion accessibility in the United States. J Quant Desc. 2022;2. https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2022.007 61. Ballatore A, Graham M, Sen S. Digital hegemonies: The localness of search engine results. Ann Am Assoc Geogr. 2017;107(5):1194–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1308240 62. DeVries T, Misra I, Wang C. Does object recognition work for everyone? In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR) workshops; 2019. p. 52–9. 63. Kitchin R. Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Inform Commun Soc.

2016;20(1):14–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2016.1154087 64. Gillespie T. The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media Soc. 2010;12(3):347–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738 65. Gibbs M, Meese J, Arnold M, Nansen B, Carter M. Funeral and Instagram: Death, social media, and platform vernacular. Inform Commun Soc. 2014;18(3):255–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2014.987152 66. Matamoros-Fernández A, Gray JE, Bartolo L, Burgess J, Suzor N. What’s “Up Next”? investigating algorithmic recommendations on YouTube across issues and over time. Media Commun. 2021;9(4):234–49. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i4.4184 67. Moe H. Comparing platform “Ranking Cultures” across languages: The case of Islam on YouTube in Scandinavia. Soc Media Soc. 2019;5(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118817038 68. Haim M. Agent-based testing: An automated approach toward artificial reactions to human behavior. J Stud. 2020;21(7):895–911. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670x.2019.1702892 69. Bounegru L, De Pryck K, Venturini T, Mauri M. “We only have 12 years”: YouTube and the IPCC report on global warming of 1.5°C. First Monday; 2020. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v25i2.10112 70. Allgaier J. Science and environmental communication on YouTube: Strategically distorted communications in online videos on climate change and climate engineering. Front Commun. 2019;4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036 PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318338 April 8, 2025 22/ 23

PLOS ONE Visual digital intermediaries and global climate communication 71. León B, Bourk M. Communicating science and technology through online video: Researching a new media phenomenon. 1st ed. Routledge; 2018. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351054577 72. YouTube for Press; Accessed: July 2022. https://blog.youtube/press/ 73. Countries with the most YouTube users; Accessed: July 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/280685/number-of-monthly-unique-youtube-users/ 74. YouTube Search; Accessed: July 2022. https://www.youtube.com/intl/en_be/howyoutubeworks/product-features/search/ 75. The Four Rs of Responsibility, Part 2: Raising authoritative content and reducing borderline content and harmful misinformation; Accessed: February 2023. https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/the-four-rs-of-responsibility-raise-and-reduce/ 76. Why is YouTube broadcasting climate misinformation to millions?; Accessed: March 2024. https://avaazimages.avaaz.org/youtube_climate_misinformation_report.pdf. 77. Welbourne DJ, Grant WJ. Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity. Public Underst Sci. 2016;25(6):706–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515572068 PMID: 25698225 78. Léon B, Boykoff M, Huda J, Rodrigo C. Framing in climate change videos. In: Communicating science and technology through online video: Researching a new media phenomenon. Routledge Taylor & Francis; 2018. p. 107–19. 79. Erviti MC, Codina M, León B. Pro-Science, Anti-science and neutral science in online videos on

climate change, vaccines and nanotechnology. Media Commun. 2020;8(2):329–38. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2937 80. O’Neill S. Defining a visual metonym: A hauntological study of polar bear imagery in climate communication. Trans Inst British Geog. 2022;47(4):1104–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12543 81. Veneti A, Rovisco M, editors. Visual politics in the global south. Political campaigning and communication. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2023. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-031-22782-0 PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318338 April 8, 2025 23/ 23