To study how journalists discursively construct the relationship between Generation Z and climate change, this study adopted a discourse analysis approach. Discourse analysis allows researchers to critically examine a set of texts, such as news articles, to find patterns, terms of reference, and meaning-making tasks that construct a relationship for the audience. Adapted from Gee (2010), critical discourse analysis requires researchers to apply a set of seven meaning-making tasks to a set of texts: patterns of significance, practices, identities, relationships, politics, connections, and sign systems/knowledge (see appendix A for definitions and examples of each).
Because this study specifically investigates journalistic coverage, 100 of the most popular news articles in 2021 and 2022 (200 total) were selected as a dataset. This technique was previously adopted and used by Creech (2020), Hainsworth et al. (2020), and Chiluwa (2021) in studies of popular news discourses. To identify these articles, Google’s News Popularity Matrix was applied, which identifies articles based on their reach (social media shares, number of overall readers) and impact (duration of views, article engagement such as commenting). Articles published from January 1, 2021 until December 31, 2022 were considered for inclusion, but only the 100 most popular articles were analyzed in this study. Articles must feature “Generation Z” or “Gen Z” and “climate change.” The news articles in this analysis averaged 722 unique viewers, 1000+ shares on social media, and 11 comments per article.[3]
To apply Gee’s (2010) meaning-making tasks to the 100 articles identified by Google’s News Popularity Matrix, a team of four researchers read and analyzed each article to identify patterns of discourses and examples of each task. Then, the team met to discuss findings, debate the exhaustive and exclusive nature of each task, and finalize a set of discourses that represent how journalists construct the relationship between climate change and Generation Z. For a step-by-step procedure, see Appendix B. This project seeks to answer three questions:
- How do journalists construct the relationship between Generation Z and climate change?
- How is Generation Z’s motivation for activism represented in news articles?
- How is climate change activism presented as part of intergenerational relationships?
As a critical project, evidence of each discourse is supported through quotes from the articles and limited statistical data (provided by the Google News Popularity Matrix) to enhance reliability of the findings. Future studies should consider adopting quantitative approaches that can contextualize the frequency and co-occurrence of each discourse.
Findings
Discourse 1: Climate change activism as symbolic of Generation Z’s politics
As readers are introduced to Generation Z’s identity and relationship to climate change, news articles take two seemingly opposed discursive approaches. First, climate change is something forced upon Generation Z because of the imminent physical threat. Second, global warming is a topic that was chosen by Generation Z because of interest in environmental issues, social justice, and a focus on future problem solving. These two discourses present two different views of the group, one where their activism is the byproduct of outside forces or one where their activism stems from internal motivations.
Type 1: Generation Z inherits global warming
The language of inheritance was common among the articles included in this analysis, particularly used to explain why Generation Z pursued the topic in its activism work. For example, in a Scientific American article from February 2022: “At the latest COP26 climate talks in Glasgow, young people from around the world were loudly protesting from the sidelines to hold their elders to task for the catastrophic climate mess Generation Z stands to inherit.” The language of inheritance often appeared in articles like this, drawing upon discourses of practices and sign systems. Inheritance is often a passive act, something that a person or group does simply by existing rather than seeking out or pursuing. By adopting the language of inheritance, journalists invoke a chronological relationship to the topic. Even when this is partnered with passages about Generation Z’s protest actions, the implications of the inheritance discourse suggest that the origins of this action emanated from the group’s chronological existence, not their interests or other internal motivations.
The inheritance discourse also appears frequently with messages of “elders” or “older generations.” As in the earlier Scientific American article, climate change is something “inherited” from elders, although this is not defined as a specific age but instead vaguely referenced as a combination of groups. The language of “elders” contextualizes the “inertance” discourse, as it invokes that Generation Z is responding to the actions (or in this case inaction) of other groups, rather than their own internal motivations. However, the vagueness of “elders” is important in this positioning. Rather than specifying one generation or group (such as Baby Boomers), the broadness of the term provides some cover and room for personal interpretation by the reader. For example, this November 2021 article from Grist: “Gallon believes the divide between younger generations and their elders stems from the simple fact that Gen Z faces a lifetime altered by climate change; they will have to deal firsthand with the implications of the decisions being made now.” The discourses of inheritance and elders are woven together and reinforce an extrinsic nature to Generation Z’s relationship to climate change.
There is an implied passivity to the inheritance discourse that eliminates or ignores more traditional internal political motivations that are likely part of Generation Z’s relationship to climate change. Within this discourse, by positioning Generation Z as inheritors of the issue, other motivations are downplayed or ignored completely. However, a secondary discourse about Generation Z choosing climate change activism challenges this passivity and provides a counter-discourse to inheritance.
Type 2: Generation Z chooses global warming activism
Alternatively, articles positioned Generation Z as actively choosing climate change as a focus for political action, rather than inheriting it. In this discourse, Generation Z is characterized by its personality, interests, and motivations rather than its relationship to the action or inaction of elders. For example, in a September 2021 article from The Guardian: “Larrivee is one of countless members of Gen Z, a generation that roughly encompasses young people under 25, who are responding to the planet’s rapidly changing climate by committing their lives to finding a solution.” Here, the discourses of commitment invoke an active selection of issues to prioritize (rather than one that was inherited). The commitment discourse implies a choice and a selection of climate change as a priority based on Generation Z’s assessment. Instead of passivity, it is an active step to identify and respond to climate change.
Just a few paragraphs later, the article reinforces the commitment discourse by reflecting on the efforts taken by members of Generation Z to respond to climate change even without the support of traditional political structures: “Young people are finding their way to these careers, though, with or without the federal government’s support.” Here, the commitment is characterized as so strong, that it shapes entire careers even when those careers are not fully supported through government programs.
Unlike the inheritance discourse, the commitment discourse credits Generation Z for its interest in the issue. The group is positioned as in control of its interests rather than passively inheriting them from elders. This is accomplished through reporting of individual examples, often profiles of Generation Z members who have actively pursued climate change as an area of interest. For example, a CNBC article from August 2021 profiles 19-year-old Trinity Gbla who reflects on her willingness to pay more for sustainable agricultural goods, even when it means sacrificing financially elsewhere. Stories like Gbla’s profile the choices made by Generation Z as a demonstration of commitment to climate change activism.
Choice is often used a component of the commitment discourse because it reinforces the active nature of Generation Z’s involvement in climate change activism. By profiling choices of Generation Z’s shopping, career, and lifestyle habits, these articles demonstrate the reflection and activity involved in a commitment to climate change as a political issue. Unlike the passivity of inheritance, choice implies activity. Discursively, this choice was explained as the result of three motivations in the second discourse.
Discourse 2: Motivations for Generation Z’s relationship with climate change
When describing why Generation Z was involved with climate change activism, journalists adopted three explanations: (1) climate change aligns with other issues of interest, (2) Generation Z’s personality matches the nuances of climate change, and (3) Generation Z’s desire to create lasting impact. These three motivations were explained using a variety of techniques and language that reinforced the relationship between the generation and the issue.
First, journalists characterized Generation Z’s interest in climate change activism as closely related to other political and cultural issues. Most commonly, Generation Z’s activism and interest in social justice was co-mentioned as an area of political and social activity. Of the 100 articles included in this analysis, 56 included mentions of social justice issues, often also including racial and gender equity. This co-appearance was common despite many of the articles only mentioning social justice once or twice (the focus of the articles remained on climate change).
Many of the articles cited the 2021 Pew Research Center study that statistically analyzed the topics of highest interest to Generation Z. Of the 100 articles, 31 cited the Pew study which found that climate change and social justice were of importance to members of Generation Z voters. The citation of this study likely drives the reason that social justice co-appeared in many of the articles. This reliance on survey data to demonstrate the co-support of social justice issues and climate change activism was often left without further explanation, as if the two topics explained each other. For example, an April 2021 article from USA Today reflected, “As Earth Day is celebrated, Generation Z is grappling with the health of the planet and racism and social justice, according to a new survey.” Quotes like this were common, as they linked the two topics together, demonstrated support using survey data or a Pew reference, but failed to provide further context for such a relationship.
The limited context of the co-support of issues is perhaps reflective of the brevity of these articles and the traditional news reporting techniques that exist within. Rather than feature quotes, qualitative insight, or editorial reflection from members of Generation Z, this information sharing approach documented the Pew study without contextualizing it using other journalistic techniques. This type of reporting adopts a more objective information sharing approach that seeks to provide the audience with facts, statistics, or other quantitative measures. However, it fails to explain why the two topics co-appear or the nature of the relationship between the two. Academically, this relationship is studied extensively, however journalistically, most articles failed to provide an explanation.
Second, common personality traits of Generation Z were described in the article and explained as the reason for climate change interest and activism. Specifically, Generation Z was described as “resistant” (18 articles), “change-makers” (10 articles), and “anxious” (28 articles) most commonly. These personality traits were used to explain why climate change activism grew popular amongst the group, often cited as adjectives for the entire group such as “anxious Gen Zers.” These adjectives and personality traits were rarely cited (unlike the earlier Pew study), but instead used by journalists to explain why climate change activism had grown popular. In most cases, it is unclear how or why these adjectives were adopted, suggesting that they are the result of more editorialized content than the previous information-sharing approach.
As an identity discourse, these terms of reference depict Generation Z as a homogenous group with a causal relationship between personality and political activity. However, there is more contextualizing in this discourse than the information-sharing approach. In this case, journalists often provided quotes or interviews with members of Generation Z to support their personality assessment. For example, in a Daily Iowan article from October 2021, one Generation Z member was interviewed to reflect on eco-anxiety: ““I’m hoping as a generation, we are able to have that energy and motivation to work collaboratively with other countries instead of acting divisively.” Here, the individual speaks in first person and discusses her goals associated with climate change activism. Quotes like this support a relationship between personality and climate change interest, as well as a homogenous view of the group. Most articles that featured quotes from Generation Z included one or two interviewees, failing to reflect the truly divergent and diverse views of the group on the subject. However, by using quotes directly from representatives of the group, the articles present these reflections as a complete representation and fail to reflect nuances in membership.
Finally, a third motivation is constructed by journalists that describes Generation Z’s desire for long-lasting impact, regardless of the issue. In these articles, climate just happens to be the issue that Generation Z selected as a focus, rather than specifically related to its interests or personality. The group’s desire to create long-lasting impact could have focused on any number of topics, thus rendering the generations relationship to climate change less important than the motivation for impact.
Articles about Generation Z’s desire to create lasting impact have two characteristics that make them unique from the previous discourses. First, supporting evidence cited within these articles almost always comes from non-members of the generation, such as professors, other journalists, politicians, and business leaders. Second, invoked within this evidence is a subtle critique that the generation’s interest in climate change is inauthentic and serves an alterative purpose than strictly environmental interests.
As a discourse building technique, journalists cite evidence- most often quotes- from non-members of Generation Z. For example, a CNBC article from August 2021 about Generation Z’s desires to work for “green companies” featured HR representatives and CEOs of five organizations, all who shared stories of trying to recruit new college graduates by promoting their climate change friendly initiatives. Even when the article introduces “greenwashing” by a non-Generation Z, business consultant, it presents Generation Z as easily manipulated by companies that claim to be climate change advocates, even when they are not: “It’s really difficult to be an ethical consumer. It requires a lot of thought and education and care, and that is because corporations have made it so difficult.” This combination of outsider perspective, limited evidence from Generation Z themselves, and the implication that the group fails to see through greenwashing, thus challenging their true impact on climate change- all combines to create a complicated motivation and effect discourse. It also presents tension between Generation Z and other generational groups because it reflects a potential misunderstanding or misestimation of each other. This is part of the focus of the third discourse.
Discourse 3: Generation Z and tension with other groups
Across news media coverage, Generation Z’s activism on climate change was characterized as in direct tension or opposition to other generational groups. Like previous studies that found media representation often discursively constructed younger generations as opposed to the practices and norms of older ones, this discourse illustrates how Generation Z’s relationship to climate change differs from other groups. Two groups of older Generations were identified as the primary opponents of Generation Z's activist: Baby Boomers and the Greatest Generation. For example, in a NPR story from January 2022, Generation Z’s activism is characterized as firmly opposed to the interests and norms of Baby Boomers: “We think so much about this country being divided, and clearly it is. But it's really divided by age. We look at Gen Z and millennials — two-thirds of them support candidates who are Democrats, not Republicans. And once you get to Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation, it's a different scenario.” Here, the interests and political affiliation of Generation Z is explained as directly opposite of Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation through the lens of political party affiliation.
Historically, opposition is a common discursive tool used to explain patterns of identity and group membership. Groups are characterized by news media as opposed to each other to denote differences and clearly define membership boundaries. However, this opposition construction can be problematic, as it can overemphasize differences and minimize similarities. It can also increase interpersonal or cultural tensions between the groups themselves, often reinforcing the opposition. In a December 2021 Wall Street Journal article, this generational tension is documented through the consumer activism related to global warming enacted by Generation Z. The article shares how Generation Z’s support of brands that participate in climate pledges and rejection of companies with failing environmental standards has impacted legacy brands that were once popular with Baby Boomers. The article suggests that Generation Z’s consumer preferences are responsible for the failure and closing of several of Baby Boomer’s favorite brands, thus increasing tension between the two groups. In this article, it’s Generation Z’s activism that is blamed for organizational failures, which frustrates older generations and emphasizes difference.
The primary focus of most articles was not the tension between generations, but rather it was constructed as a byproduct of the activist actions of Generation Z. Tension or opposition was a natural repercussion of Generation Z’s activism on climate change. For example, in a New York Times article about problems in the American wine industry, Generation Z’s preference for sustainably harvested crops was blamed for the economic problems of wineries without such commitments. The article interviewed the owners of several wineries, often describing them as “Baby Boomer owner and CEO…” or “Mr. McMillan, who is also a Baby Boomer.” By focusing on the age of owners of struggling wineries as well as the age of the generational group that is not supporting their business, the article demonstrates tension and opposition. While that tension is not the focus (the failing wine industry is), the tension is explained as one of the reasons for this failure, thus emphasizing the opposition between the two groups.
Many articles include climate change as one of several reasons for the tension between the generational groups. Other issues that reinforced differences between the groups included social justice initiatives, support of political candidates, and pandemic health and wellness. Importantly, these topics in concert with each other reinforce the differences between the groups as more than temporary reactions to a one-off issue. While no news stories directly editorialized the tension to suggest that it was replicable, by layering differences on multiple issues, this meaning is conveyed to readers.
Discourse 4: Generation Z and the future
Language associated with Generation Z as “the future” was common throughout these articles. Chronologically, this makes sense as it positions Generation Z as the age group that is most likely to be alive the longest, however, it also presents a unique discourse about what that future looks like and how the group intends on shaping it. For example, a Forbes article from December 2021 includes reflections from Generation Z members with eco-anxiety: “It’s important to think that we are the future and that the future is ours so we work to not go extinct, but we should avoid this narrative because we are all living the present and it must be an intergenerational fight.” This quote repeatedly refers to the future and Generation Z’s role in shaping that future. In most of the future discourse, journalists fail to provide specific predictions but instead adopt broad language to reference the group’s relationship to it.
There are two primary ways that the future is referenced in these articles. First, Generation Z is characterized as the future. As in the quote above, “we are the future” (14 articles) or “Generation Z is the future” (12 articles) appeared frequently throughout the articles, most often appearing as quotes from Generation Z members, business leaders, or activist organizers. With a vague reference to “children are the future,” quotes like these suggest that the group is positioned, journalistically (and perhaps culturally) as responsible for changes to environmentalism and the trajectory of climate change. In a National Observer article from December 2021, one interviewed member of Generation Z demonstrates this ownership discourse and its relationship to the future: “We’re just making it clear that this is the kind of future we want, these are the leaders we want.” Again, the use of first-person language, and the demands made by Generation Z on climate change leadership and policy, reinforces the ownership discourse of the future.
Second, the articles suggested that Generation Z needs to prevent or reshape the anticipated negative environmental future through its climate change activism. While still no specific predictions about the future exist in these articles, it is constructed as grimmer, requiring Generation Z intervention to prevent it. Journalists loosely imply that the future, in its current form, is dangerous. In the same National Observer article cited above, a Generation Z member is quoted saying: “We’re quite literally fighting to survive.” The discourse constructed here combines Generation Z’s ownership over the future using first-person language, and an ominous prediction about the brutality of the future. By positioning the group as resistant or fighting against that future, Generation Z’s activism is closely tied to discourses and predictions of it.
Importantly, none of the articles anticipated if this resistance or ownership of the future would be successful at addressing the group’s concerns over climate change. This seemingly challenges the earlier discourse that questions the group’s authenticity behind climate change activism and motivations for involvement. Regardless of the earlier discourse, references to the future imply that Generation Z is uniquely positioned to have an impact.
Discourse 5: Generation Z figureheads and role models
Finally, although the articles referenced numerous examples of Generation Z members involved in climate change activism, two individuals regularly appeared as a type of discursive figurehead for the group: Greta Thunberg (61 articles) and Xiye Bastida (34 articles). Mentions of both individuals often included their specific ages or their birth years as qualifications for membership within the generation. Each activist is presented as a type of figurehead for Generation Z’s involvement in the climate change movement. For example, this article from Morning Consult in September 2021 reflects “While many of the poll’s respondents are not yet able to vote, as the generation that has given the world activists such as Greta Thunberg and Xiye Bastida comes of age, its values will be of increasing relevance to policymakers.” Here, the activists are figureheads and easily identifiable representatives of the generation. The language of relevance positions the activists as a type of leader of the age group, recognized by both Generation Z and others (such as policymakers).
Thunberg and Bastida are not just individual members of Generation Z, they are positioned as famous examples of the group- fame which originates in their climate change activism. In a Refinery 29 article from September 2021, Thunberg’s activism is directly related to her generational identity and positioned as motivating for other members: “Greta’s very Generation Z approach is a product of the mix of intense anxiety and impulse to act — out of dire need, not idealism — that has energized other activists of her generation… It’s also what’s made them ‘voices of their generation.’” Quotes like this both position Thunberg as a product of her generation as well as a leader or “voice.” Similarly, articles on Bastida’s activism argue she learned her organizational skills from watching other members of Generation Z become involved in climate change movements- which she now lead in Latin America. By positioning these women as first products of their Generation Z membership, then leaders of the group, both are constructed as figureheads of the climate change movement and generation.
Many articles go further and illustrate the responsibilities of serving as a generational figurehead. In a December 2021 article in Vogue, Bastida is profiled with special attention to the difficulty of being a youth leader: “Like many activists in her generation, she scoffs at the notion, common in my youth, that individuals can head off environmental catastrophe by doing little things like recycling and changing our light bulbs.” In articles likes this, Bastida’s life as a typical college student is placed in opposition to her activist lifestyle: “We are in her dorm, a residential tower at the University of Pennsylvania, where she leads a double life as a college sophomore, majoring in environmental studies with a concentration in policy…She does most of her reading on the Megabus, shuttling to New York for planning sessions with other activists, speaking engagements, and photo shoots.” This type of duality is used by journalists to set Bastida and Thunberg apart from their peers. They are both presented as having some average youth experiences such as living in a dorm room at college, and simultaneously leading climate change movements. Again, this reinforces their role as both products and leaders of the generation because of their relationship to climate change.