COP30: an unprecedented summit that began online
COP30: an unprecedented summit that began online
For observers familiar with the usual attention cycles of climate conferences, COP30 in Belém, Brazil, marks a shift in era. Historically, major summits such as Paris or Glasgow generated very high engagement peaks, while intermediate editions such as Baku last year were far quieter, limited to technical and financial issues that struggled to capture broad public interest.
COP30 has shattered this pattern through unprecedented pre-mediatisation. The data shows that the summit began well before its official opening. Between 7 October and 6 November 2025, more than 500,000 mentions had already circulated across X, LinkedIn and online media. This early warning sign demonstrates that COPs no longer begin in negotiation rooms, but in the digital arena where narrative battles unfold. The “Amazon effect” is the catalyst behind this surge. By hosting the summit at the heart of Brazil, organisers transformed a diplomatic meeting into a global mainstream event that acted as a powerful amplifier. Data covering the full period (15 October to 22 November 2025) confirms this hyper-visibility: conversation volumes skyrocketed to 2.4 million posts on X, the LinkedIn ecosystem generated over 50,000 publications, and online media produced nearly 340,000 articles.
However, this abundance of content does not signal consensus. On the contrary, the analysis reveals a complete digital fragmentation. The public, professionals and the media may be discussing the same COP, but they are experiencing three radically different events. Anger, enthusiasm and frustration collide.
Even though COP30 has been highly visible within its own spheres, it is essential to assess its real weight in global attention. The data shows that on X, it remains far behind major international topics. Donald Trump exceeds 68 million mentions, Gaza more than 11 million, and figures such as Musk or Putin easily pass the million mark. COP30, with 1.3 million citations, appears as a significant but secondary event in a space dominated by geopolitics and US politics. The chart below illustrates this divide.
LinkedIn, X and the media: a war of worlds
A comparative analysis of the three informational spheres reveals ecosystems with radically different tones and concerns, confirming that the battle for narrative control is taking place inside sealed silos.
On X (Twitter):
On X, the public arena is in turmoil. The mood is not one of measured debate but of putting the event on trial. The language is blunt and often accusatory, and the spikes in volume are closely linked to visual controversies. Vocabulary related to material accusations dominates the discourse. The most viral expressions are not about climate issues but about the “100,000 trees” allegedly cut down for infrastructure, the “private jets” that supposedly filled the skies above Belém with more than 21,000 mentions, and the “cruise ships” chartered to house delegates. These direct accusations form the true core of public conversation. The dominant emotions are anger and sarcasm. The “alert” emoji 🚨 is the most widely used, with more than 128,000 occurrences, turning the feed into a constant siren. It is followed by the “clown” emoji 🤡, used to mock perceived hypocrisy. Public opinion frames the event as an assault by elites against the very forest they claim to defend.
On LinkedIn:
LinkedIn appears as a “solutionist” and corporate bubble. In contrast to X, the platform functions like a quieter, more insulated space, less open to criticism. It is a world of unwavering corporate optimism and market-based solutions. While X debates, LinkedIn displays. It is the space of a disciplined climate conversation and performative demonstrations of commitment. The vocabulary is financial and abstract: “Blended Finance,” “ESG criteria,” “energy transition” and “bioeconomy” dominate the discourse. The Amazon is viewed here as an investment opportunity. The prevailing emotion is one of celebration and partnership, with a profusion of handshake 🤝 and seedling 🌱 emojis signalling consensus around constructive action.
In online media:
Online media have generated a substantial volume of articles (340,000), playing a factual role that helps track the events. They aim to follow the official agenda and rationalise the debate. Their vocabulary is institutional, dominated by terms such as “agreements,” “nations” and “diplomacy.” The media are caught between the obligation to report facts and the pressure of a public demanding “culprits.”
A glance at the data shows that two visions of COP30 appear to coexist without ever meeting. On LinkedIn, optimism reigns supreme, with 20,515 positive posts compared to just 1,660 negative ones — an unequivocal endorsement of climate action and its promises. In contrast, X (formerly Twitter) reflects loud anger, with 227,900 negative tweets, a volume of criticism more than a hundred times higher than on LinkedIn, dominated by disappointment and outrage. Between these two extremes, the media attempt to maintain a precarious balance, producing overwhelmingly neutral coverage (271,220 articles), as if to contain the polarisation between hope and disillusionment.
COP30 in three vocabularies: when each platform writes its own story
COP30 did more than divide opinions; it also fragmented language. A semantic analysis shows that X, LinkedIn and online media do not merely have different tones, but use vocabularies that are almost foreign to one another, creating isolated discussion bubbles.
On X, the lexicon emphasises the staging of the Amazon and power dynamics. Dominant terms such as “amazon rainforest,” “planet,” “trees,” “world leaders,” “belém,” and “brazil” coexist with expressions linked to controversies: “private jets,” “private jet,” “prince william,” “carbon confetti parade,” “13 km,” and “100,000 trees.” The conference is often portrayed as a spectacle of global elites, where symbols such as private jets, processions, highways and tens of thousands of delegates take precedence over negotiations. The narrative focuses less on commitments and more on perceived hypocrisy, turning COP30 into an arena for denunciation.
Key Expressions on X (15/10 to 22/11) :
On LinkedIn, the tone is almost the opposite. Around the same anchors (“cop30,” “belém,” “brazil,” “climate change,” “amazon”), an institutional, solutions-oriented lexicon emerges: “climate action,” “communities,” “resilience,” “sustainability,” “nature,” “adaptation,” “climate finance,” “implementation,” “collaboration,” “progress.” Here, COP30 appears as a space for collective work, focused on partnerships, governance and sectoral transformation. The Amazon rainforest becomes a lever for innovation and action rather than a symbol of protest.
Key Expressions on LinkedIn (15/10 to 22/11) :
In online media, the vocabulary aligns with that of international negotiations. The most frequent words (“climate change,” “environment,” “fossil fuels,” “global warming,” “world leaders,” “developing countries,” “paris agreement,” “un climate talks,” “agreement,” “negotiators,” “conference”), structure a narrative focused on diplomatic mechanics. Agencies such as Reuters (US), AFP (France) and Xinhua (China) feature prominently, highlighting the role of major news outlets in circulating the official narrative. Here, Belém is primarily seen as the site of a “climate summit,” where national positions and geopolitical stakes collide.
Key Expressions in media (15/10 to 22/11) :
Three platforms, three vocabularies, three ways of telling the same COP30 story.
A global tour of COP actors standing out by their presence or absence
Brazil, the omnipresent and controversial host
COP30 is above all Brazil’s COP, as the country has succeeded in positioning itself as the central narrator. It dominates global volume, with nearly 360,000 tweets and more than 125,000 articles. President Lula, the superstar of the summit, oscillates between heroism and target. He is the most mentioned personality worldwide on X (@LulaOficial: nearly 64,000 mentions) and embodies Global South leadership and the narrative of repair, yet he is simultaneously a prime target for domestic critics over the enormous costs of hosting and the gap between rhetoric and the reality on the ground.
The Amazon has become a political protagonist both before and during the event. Hashtags such as #Amazonia and #Indigenous saturate the conversations. The governor of Pará, Helder Barbalho, emerges as the face of local hospitality. However, Twitter data reveals a deep Brazilian divide. Virulent hashtags like #farsacop30 (the COP30 farce) and #globolixo circulate widely. Opposition accounts such as NewsLiberdade (40,000 mentions) criticise the logistics and inequalities, turning the summit into a contentious domestic political issue.
The presence of companies, international organisations, and consulting firms on LinkedIn:
United States: maximum polarisation
The United States is the second most active country on X, with over 100,000 tweets, but the American conversation largely drifts away from climate issues to become a trial of elite hypocrisy.
The hunt for private jets dominates the narrative, and California Governor Gavin Newsom, present in Belém, becomes one of the main targets. His travels are framed as a direct contradiction between his climate positions and lifestyle. He receives over 25,000 mentions, almost entirely highlighting perceived inconsistency. This dynamic is amplified by the spread of conspiratorial content. Accounts such as @BGatesIsaPyscho, a recurring voice in anti-elite discourse, appear among the most frequently mentioned in the X dataset, with over 42,000 occurrences. This confirms that COP30 serves as a stage for ideological confrontation, where denunciation of the powerful takes precedence over the climate debate itself.
In this fragmented landscape, two presences and absences create a stark contrast. Donald Trump chooses not to attend Belém, an absence interpreted by his supporters as a deliberate rejection of climate multilateralism. On the other side, the Democratic camp is represented by Gavin Newsom and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the only member of the US federal government actively present. Their participation gives the Democratic discourse real visibility, focusing on international cooperation and continuity in American commitments under the Paris Agreement.
Thus, the American conversation around COP30 is split. Networks close to Trump and the alt-right turn the conference into a theatre of climate hypocrisy and anti-elite criticism. Conversely, Democratic voices present Belém as a moment of constructive climate diplomacy. This divergence heightens US polarisation and makes the United States one of the arenas where climate narratives are the most antagonistic.
Voices around the world
An analysis of countries reveals the geopolitical fault lines running through COP30, with each actor playing its own distinct role on the climate stage.
In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Keir Starmer (24,000 mentions) concentrates Anglo-Saxon criticism, becoming a prime target in debates on carbon footprints and the use of private jets, seen as emblematic of a climate double standard.
In Colombia, President Gustavo Petro (26,000 mentions) emerges as one of the most radical voices, joining Lula to form a determined “Amazonian front.” Their uncompromising stance calls for an accelerated phase-out of fossil fuels and places the protection of the forest at the centre of the negotiations.
India, meanwhile, charts its own course by emphasising the “historical responsibility” of developed countries and conditioning its commitments on substantial climate financing. This strategy underscores that, for New Delhi, climate justice begins with economic rebalancing.
When Climate Misinformation Meets Diplomacy
In the age of social media, climate misinformation is no longer just background noise. Data from the European SIMODS project, combined with Visibrain’s analysis, paints a troubling picture. So-called “premium misinformation”, designed for maximum virality, now often outperforms factual content in both reach and impact. The issue is no longer simply the existence of falsehoods, but their performance. On mainstream platforms, emotion and polarisation are consistently rewarded by algorithms, while scientific rigour is sidelined.
Faced with this reality, COP30 marked a turning point. A coalition of countries, supported by the UN and UNESCO, launched an international declaration on the integrity of climate information. The initiative calls on governments, platforms and private actors to strengthen transparency and to protect scientists and journalists. France officially joined the declaration during the conference, acknowledging that tackling misinformation is now a core part of climate action. It is a strong political signal, even if the data shows that misleading content remains a minority within the overall flow of information.
Social media analysis confirms this imbalance. On X (formerly Twitter), climate misinformation accounts for 11 percent of content, according to SIMODS. Low-credibility accounts such as @BGatesIsaPyscho (42,000 mentions) and @PeterDClack (36,000 mentions) dominate attention by spreading climate-sceptic or anti-elite narratives that leverage polarisation to extend their reach. In contrast, LinkedIn stands out as an island of resilience, with only 2 percent of misleading content. As a platform built around professionals and institutions, it acts as a natural filter and conspiracy-focused accounts are largely absent.
Although COP30 was not overwhelmed by a wave of fake news, it highlighted a more subtle shift. Misinformation is no longer measured only by volume, but by its capacity to shape narratives. By formally acknowledging this challenge in official texts and mobilising digital platforms, Belém opened a new chapter. The protection of reliable climate information is becoming a pillar of environmental diplomacy. It is a necessary step at a time when attention has become a currency and when falsehoods travel faster than facts.
The Evolution of Climate Narratives: From Paris to Belém (2015–2025)
Since the Paris Agreement in 2015, the climate narrative has undergone a profound shift, reflecting the hopes, setbacks and geopolitical transformations shaping global climate conferences. COP26 in Glasgow (2021) marked a return to large-scale media and public mobilisation, fuelled by mounting urgency and embodied by figures such as Greta Thunberg. Social media channels surged with activity, and the global youth movement helped turn the summit into a symbol of collective determination.
By COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh (2022), however, momentum had slowed. The once-powerful popular dynamic gave way to more technical, fragmented negotiations. Public interest waned, and conversations moved back behind diplomatic and institutional doors, losing emotional resonance. COP28 in Dubai (2023) then crystallised public scepticism. Hosted in a major oil-producing state, it sparked concerns about greenwashing and deepened distrust in governmental and corporate climate commitments. Media noise grew, but optimism faded.
COP29 in Baku (2024) reinforced this sense of stagnation. The climate narrative seemed locked in a repetitive cycle: familiar speeches, declining engagement, and a perception of a process increasingly unable to reinvent itself.
COP30 in Belém (2025) broke that cycle. For the first time since 2015, the narrative pivoted towards the Global South and the living world, stepping away from negotiation tables to re-anchor itself in the physical realities of land, communities and forest ecosystems.
This edition was not judged by ambition alone, but by its material footprint. Debates over “cut trees” and “cruise ships” highlighted a new expectation: the climate legitimacy of a summit now depends on the concrete example it sets. Belém carried a narrative larger than the event itself, one of repair, rebalancing and reconnection.
Conclusion
COP30 represents a clear turning point. In Belém, heightened media attention, polarised conversations and fragmented narratives revealed a fundamental truth: climate is no longer a consensual topic shaped by diplomatic ritual, but a space of constant tension where interests, emotions, evidence and counter-narratives collide.
This summit highlights a shift already under way. COPs no longer set the pace of the climate debate; they now sit within an information ecosystem where narratives move faster than decisions. Expectations are higher, distrust more visible, and the demand for tangible outcomes more immediate.
Belém also underscored a crucial new reality: information integrity is now a prerequisite for climate action. The international declaration against climate misinformation is not symbolic. It acknowledges that the climate battle is fought as much in the public sphere as in negotiation rooms.
What COP30 demonstrates is that climate legitimacy can no longer be claimed; it must be proven. Future summits will be evaluated not by the volume of announcements or the solemnity of speeches, but by the real, measurable and shared impact they deliver. The climate transition must now persuade through evidence, not intention.
Belém is not the end of a cycle, but the beginning of a new era, one where COPs are no longer diplomatic interludes, but public tests of coherence, transparency and credibility.
.png?width=1090&height=1330&name=CTA%20newsletter%20(1).png)