The imagery of climate change matters. How we perceive the world affects how we perceive climate change, and how it will affect us – or whether it will affect us at all.
Imagery has long been understood as an important part of climate communication. Climate change is complex, and requires some simplification to be communicated widely. Yet, this process of simplification can rely too heavily on existing stereotypes, which can affect risk perception across different populations.
Think of climate vulnerability. This term describes who is likely to be negatively affected by climate change. Perceptions of vulnerability are affected by the images that are chosen to represent climate change. However, the images that are chosen also reflect our perceptions of who is vulnerable.
For example, sea level rise is often represented through aerial images of Pacific atolls and ice melt is made emotional through the use of polar bears. But which images are most often used to represent human vulnerability to climate change?
Search online for an image of climate victims and you are likely to see a photograph showing a stereotypical image of “brown women and children” standing in rising flood waters. Images like this show women and children, usually in Asia or Africa, looking distressed in a way that frames them as victims.
However, when searching by region, images of climate victims can look different. For example, compare the search for “climate victim Asia” and “climate victim UK”.
The image above of of Fuli Khatan, a Bangladeshi flood victim, shows a woman experiencing a disaster.
But the image below is very different. It shows Mary Long-Dhonau, a climate victim from the UK whose home has been flooded several times. She is looking directly at the camera, smiling slightly. She is not portrayed as a victim, but as a campaigner.
The difference in how these women are portrayed is effective in showing how climate vulnerability is understood. For the most part, the climate vulnerable are imagined to be women and children in the Global South (developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America), due to their marginalised position within society.
In other words, the climate vulnerable are portrayed as the same people who are already considered vulnerable.
This framing makes climate change an issue that follows an established pattern of risk. It doesn’t seem like a new issue, but rather chalk on the white wall of other political issues such as development.
This overlap is partly the result of long-running and deeply embedded power inequalities that have made some people vulnerable in order to make other people wealthy.
COP30 chief calls for global unity on climate action as cooperation falters
However, this pattern is overstated and climate vulnerability extends beyond those we already understand as vulnerable. Last month, the European Copernicus climate service declared that 2024 was the first calendar year to pass the symbolic threshold of 1.5°C heating, as well as the world’s hottest on record. Every degree of heating means more people will suffer the effects of climate change.
These images also reflect the dominant understanding in the UK of climate change vulnerability as something that only happens elsewhere – in countries that are already vulnerable.
Climate is an ‘us’ problem
I’ve often encountered this issue in my research on the politics of climate vulnerability. My work questions the assumptions of climate change and vulnerability, tracing them back to understand the logics on which they rely. For example, the Pacific was described as vulnerable and doomed to not being habitable long before climate change became an issue.
At the same time, assumptions of safety are rooted in history. In developed societies, there is a popular narrative that affluence provides a shield, which assumes wealthier people will be better protected by default.
And yet, the UK is already experiencing climate change.
The UK’s rainfall intensity has increased markedly over the past 60 years, leading to an increase of extreme flooding events. The east coast is being eroded, and battling sea level rise. And the UK government’s climate change committee has argued that the UK has no credible adaptation plan.
Also, in an interconnected world, we have already experienced how shocks elsewhere can affect our food supply and gas prices. Even if the UK could escape the direct effects of climate change, it would still feel the consequences.
Our perceptions of vulnerability are so entrenched that even climate-related incidences in wealthy countries, like the recent floods in Valencia or wildfires in LA don’t lead to a change in narrative. In fact, climate activists continue to be criminalised.
Being aware of how images are used to influence our perceptions of vulnerability is an important step in changing the narrative. Climate change is already at levels at which we are all affected. We need to make this clearer.
The UK has an historical responsibility to mitigate but it also needs to take more steps towards adaptation to the climate change that is already locked in.
Speaking in February 2025, professor of energy and climate change Kevin Anderson described the future of humanity as a range of possibilities that goes from “dire consequences” to “catastrophic outcomes”. The higher temperatures are pushed past 1.5°C warming, the truer it is that nobody is safe.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The post A tale of two women: What climate vulnerability actually looks like appeared first on Climate Home News.
A tale of two women: What climate vulnerability actually looks like
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.
ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
Renewable Energy Concepts Can’t Violate the Laws of Physics
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits