Frames and Counter-Frames of Meaning in Climate Change: Between Public Percepti

Objectives: This article critically examines how frames and counter-frames organise political and media communication about climate change, with particular attention to frame production, media and platform circulation, reception by polarised audiences, and contributions from environmental journalism and environmental education. Methodology: The study uses a structured critical narrative review of peer-reviewed scholarship, combining foundational works with recent studies published mainly between 2023 and 2025. Searches used combinations of climate change, framing, environmental communication, environmental journalism, climate education, polarization, misinformation, emotions, and solutions journalism, together with DOI metadata and publisher pages. Results: The literature indicates that climate framing cannot be reduced to a Lakoffian account or to a simple opposition between information and emotion. Journalistic practices, political identities, platform logics, environmental education, responsibility attribution, and efficacy beliefs all shape interpretation and engagement. Conclusions: Rigorous climate communication should combine scientific evidence, psychological and geographic proximity, frame plurality, transparency about interests, and credible responses, while avoiding both paralysing catastrophism and overly moralising or reductive narratives.