Introduction

In recent years, the global climate crisis has moved to the forefront of public discourse, prompting not only scientific and political debates but also intensified rhetorical strategies in media communication. As environmental challenges become more urgent and complex, the language used to describe them increasingly relies on dramatic and emotionally resonant metaphors. One of the most prevalent metaphorical frames found in contemporary media is that of war. Headlines call for battles against carbon emissions, frontline defenders of biodiversity, and victories in the fight for a livable planet. These metaphors are not merely stylistic choices – they reveal underlying conceptual structures and ideological assumptions about the nature of climate change, the actors involved, and the appropriate responses. Understanding how such language shapes public thinking is crucial for evaluating the effectiveness and ethical implications of environmental communication. To ground this discussion, it is first necessary to understand how metaphor operates as a cognitive and discursive tool in environmental communication.

Metaphor has long been considered a powerful tool in both poetic and practical language, yet modern cognitive linguistics reveals its deeper role in human thought. According to Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), metaphor is not merely ornamental, but foundational: it shapes how we understand abstract domains, such as climate change, through familiar source domains like war. Ashurova and Galieva (2024) argue that metaphor functions as a cognitive mechanism that facilitates the structuring and interpretation of abstract experiences by mapping them onto more concrete, familiar domains, thus enabling the generation of new knowledge. Kövecses (2010) supports this view, noting that metaphors serve as cognitive bridges between concrete experiences and abstract reasoning. In this process, war metaphors structure perception and guide reasoning by mapping the cognitive frame of battle onto environmental issues. When climate change is described as an “enemy” or pollution as an “invader”, this framing not only conveys urgency but suggests the appropriate response: mobilization, defense, and strategic resistance.

Yet metaphor alone does not explain how such expressions shape collective understanding. Framing Theory adds a crucial dimension. As Goffman (1974) and Entman (1993) argue, frames serve as organizing structures that highlight certain aspects of an issue while omitting others. Entman (1993) defines framing as the selection and salience of specific elements, which influence how people perceive problems, assign responsibility, and support proposed solutions. According to Thibodeau (2016), metaphor-based frames are persuasive because they construct coherent narratives that shape moral evaluations and emotional engagement. By selecting specific linguistic elements and making them salient, communicators define problems, assign blame, make moral judgments, and propose remedies. When a government is described as “waging war on pollution,” the metaphor and the frame work in tandem to construct a worldview in which ecological protection is a battlefield, complete with heroes, enemies, and casualties.

This dual lens – cognitive metaphor and framing – shows how war metaphors in media go beyond simplifying complex issues. They structure narratives that legitimize particular interpretations of events. In the context of environmental reporting, metaphors such as “frontline defenders”, “carbon bombs”, and “eco-holocaust” frame climate change as a war demanding both moral resolve and tactical intervention. These metaphorical framings do not simply reflect environmental problems; they actively construct their meaning and define how audiences are expected to respond.

Framing theory further explains how these metaphors function not just as linguistic devices but as instruments of persuasion. The mechanisms of selection and salience play a critical role. When a media outlet selects specific metaphors and repeats them across articles, these choices become cognitively dominant, influencing how readers interpret environmental events. War metaphors typically define the problem as urgent and threatening, diagnose the cause as institutional failure or human negligence, make moral judgments about responsible parties, and suggest remedies in the form of aggressive intervention. Thus, metaphor and frame converge to shape a compelling and emotive narrative of crisis.

Importantly, the framing of war metaphors can be either deliberate or conventional. Environmental NGOs may intentionally frame climate change as a war to inspire action, while journalists may unconsciously repeat militarized language that reinforces adversarial thinking. As Burgers et al. (2016) note, both forms of framing have powerful effects on public understanding. They can galvanize engagement but also risk inducing fear, eco-fatigue, or political polarization if overused or unbalanced.

Cultural and geopolitical contexts further influence metaphor usage. In Western media representations of China’s environmental efforts, for example, war metaphors are often employed to highlight competition or critique governance. Yet when the focus shifts to cooperative success stories – such as renewable energy milestones – war metaphors give way to more neutral, technocratic frames. This flexibility underscores the ideological nature of metaphor: it not only structures cognition but also reflects institutional values, media biases, and strategic interests.

While war metaphors can energize public discourse and clarify abstract threats, they also narrow the range of possible responses. By conceptualizing climate change primarily as a battle, these metaphors may obscure cooperative or systemic solutions. They may also marginalize indigenous or non-Western perspectives that emphasize harmony with nature rather than conquest. As climate discourse evolves, so too must our metaphorical and framing strategies – toward approaches that balance urgency with nuance, action with reflection.

An analysis of English-language media shows consistent patterns in how war metaphors are deployed. Environmental phenomena are frequently conceptualized in conflictual terms: climate change becomes a hostile force, plastic a foreign invader, and activists are transformed into soldiers. This militarization of discourse is especially evident in articles from The Guardian, BBC, and The Conversation, where environmental challenges are presented with the urgency and gravity of wartime emergencies. Expressions such as “combat climate change” or “launch a green offensive” carry strong connotations of strategic action and imminent threat.

In environmental media, war metaphors are not used arbitrarily – they align closely with the thematic focus of the discourse. Their deployment reflects specific topical domains, each shaping the emotional, cognitive, and rhetorical dimensions of public understanding. Lin and Cao (2020) found that when climate change is framed using war metaphors, readers are more likely to perceive the issue as serious and requiring urgent, collective action. To illustrate this, we can identify several thematic domains in which war metaphors are regularly deployed in environmental media. These categories not only reflect the diversity of metaphor usage but also reveal the specific communicative purposes behind each metaphorical choice.

The main thematic domains include:

• Climate change;
• Pollution;
• Biodiversity loss;
• Environmental activism and policy;
• Natural disasters.

 When addressing climate change, the metaphorical frame casts the phenomenon as a formidable enemy requiring global resistance. One of the most recurring expressions in contemporary media is the call to “fight climate change,” which appears in headlines, policy documents, and activist discourse. In an article published by The Conversation (2020), the authors explicitly state: “We must fight climate change like it’s World War III,” extending the metaphor beyond urgency into full-scale warfare. This framing equates environmental action with a historical military mobilization, emphasizing total societal commitment. Similarly, the CFR Education article uses the word “combat” to describe governmental actions, assigning the state an active military role and narrowing the scope of responsibility to institutional actors, while sidelining grassroots or cooperative efforts.

In the domain of pollution, metaphors often personify pollutants as invading forces. Burgers et al. (2016) observe that figurative language, especially metaphors and hyperbole, plays a crucial role in shaping persuasive media messages and public emotion, particularly in discussions of environmental risk. The phrase “plastic invasion”, as seen in coverage by Smithsonian Ocean Porta (2011), presents plastic waste not merely as debris, but as an enemy force overwhelming natural ecosystem. Such metaphors construct pollution as an encroachment on ecological territory, evoking imagery of warfare and territorial loss. This dramatization, while effective in evoking emotional concern, risks obscuring the systemic industrial processes behind pollution by focusing attention on the material substance alone.

Metaphorical constructions also shape narratives of biodiversity loss, where environmental degradation is portrayed as a war zone. Expressions like “battle to save endangered species” or “defending the rainforest” appear frequently in environmental journalism and activist texts. These frames emphasize ecological fragility while framing conservation as a noble and defensive mission. This is evident in articles that highlight the role of lawyers, scientists, and activists as “climate warriors” who are “on the conservation frontline”, framing their work as resistance against large-scale ecological collapse.

Another recurring theme involves environmental activism and policy, where actors are positioned as either defenders or aggressors in the metaphorical war. In an article from The Guardian (2013), the World Bank is framed as a proactive and committed actor in the struggle against climate change. Through this narrative, the World Bank is metaphorically depicted as a warrior – a positive and authoritative figure taking a leadership role in the global battle. This portrayal emphasizes the importance of institutional leadership and international cooperation in tackling the climate crisis. It also illustrates how war metaphors are flexible and can be used not only to assign blame but also to legitimize and elevate particular actors as heroic figures in the environmental conflict. Meanwhile, political figures who delay or resist environmental protections are metaphorically framed as hostile agents. A prominent example is the framing of Donald Trump in The Guardian (2025), where he is accused of launching “attacks on the environment”, suggesting that climate inaction is not passive but an aggressive, damaging force.

Finally, metaphors extend into coverage of natural disasters, where nature itself becomes personified as a violent or retaliating agent. Articles describe events like rising sea levels or wildfires using expressions such as “forests under siege” or “weather warfare”, emphasizing unpredictability, vulnerability, and the breakdown of environmental stability. One particularly striking example comes from EcoPreacher (2017), where the author writes, “The planet is sending us a message: surrender”. Here, the metaphor departs from heroic resistance and advocates for humility and systemic transformation – an appeal to cease domination over nature and recognize ecological limits.

These topical domains do not merely describe environmental problems – they define how such problems are conceptualized and what responses are considered legitimate. Charteris-Black (2004) emphasizes that metaphors in political and media discourse often function ideologically, guiding audiences toward preferred interpretations while concealing alternative views. Yet to fully grasp their persuasive and political significance, these metaphors must also be understood through their ideological functions. The following ideological functions illustrate how war metaphors shape power dynamics, emotional responses, and moral framing in environmental discourse:

• Positioning of actors within power structures;
• Promoting collectivism;
• Amplifying fear and urgency;
• Reframing nature as a moral agent.

War metaphors in environmental media fulfill several ideological roles that shape how power, responsibility, and morality are distributed in public discourse. One of the most prominent functions is the positioning of actors within power structures. Semino and Demjén (2017) argue that metaphorical framings are powerful tools for positioning actors as heroes, victims, or villains, which in turn shapes audience trust, blame, and calls for justice. Institutional figures such as governments, international organizations, or financial institutions are often cast as commanders or heroes in the environmental conflict. For instance, the World Bank is portrayed in The Guardian as a “warrior spearheading the fight against climate change”, reinforcing the legitimacy of institutional authority and promoting top-down policy solutions. Conversely, political leaders who dismantle environmental protections are framed as aggressors – as seen in coverage of Trump’s environmental rollbacks – a metaphorical framing that condemns inaction as not just failure, but sabotage.

Another ideological function is promoting collectivism. Metaphors like “joining forces” and “allies in the press” construct environmentalism as a shared effort that transcends institutional hierarchies. In BBC’s narrative of the Cuyahoga River fire and the subsequent green movement, non-governmental actors such as journalists and citizen coalitions are framed as key allies in the war, highlighting the potential of collective civic action even in the absence of official support.

A third function is amplifying fear and urgency. Metaphors such as “eco-holocaust” and “carbon bomb” evoke catastrophic stakes, intensifying emotional engagement and moral pressure. In the metaphor of “prompt and utter destruction”, drawn from the EcoPreacher (2017) article, the intertextual reference to World War II evokes a sense of existential threat, suggesting that climate change may result in consequences comparable to nuclear warfare. Semino and Demjén (2017) argue that metaphorical framings are powerful tools for positioning actors as heroes, victims, or villains, which in turn shapes audience trust, blame, and calls for justice. Flusberg, Matlock, and Thibodeau (2016) caution that while war metaphors can prompt action, they may also lead to unintended outcomes such as fear, disengagement, or polarization, especially when overused. While such metaphors can catalyze rapid response, they may also produce anxiety, fatalism, or resistance when audiences feel overwhelmed.

Finally, metaphors serve to reframe nature as an active agent. Rather than portraying the planet as a passive victim, metaphors like “the planet is sending a message” or “nature strikes back” recast the environment as a moral force with agency. This shift reflects deeper ecological ideologies that reject anthropocentrism and advocate for humility and adaptation rather than control. Such framing appears most clearly in media that advocate for deep systemic change rather than technocratic solutions.

Together, these topical and ideological layers reveal the rhetorical sophistication of war metaphors in environmental discourse. They do not merely dramatize – they frame, persuade, assign blame, justify action, and mobilize emotion. Yet this very power demands critical reflection. As Flusberg et al. (2016) and Thibodeau (2016) caution, war metaphors can polarize, induce fear-based responses, and limit imaginative solutions. Recognizing both their communicative utility and their limitations is crucial for building effective and ethically responsible climate communication

 Conclusion

War metaphors in environmental media are powerful tools that blend cognitive structuring with rhetorical framing. They dramatize complex issues, direct emotional responses, and construct ideological narratives that influence policy and public behavior. By integrating Conceptual Metaphor Theory with Framing Theory, this article has shown how metaphors such as “fight”, “defend”, and “invade” do more than describe environmental problems – they shape how those problems are understood and acted upon. Recognizing the persuasive force of these metaphors is essential for developing more effective, ethical, and inclusive environmental communication in the face of global ecological crisis.