‘Green future’ versus ‘Planetary boundaries’? Evolving online discourse coalitions in European bioeconomy conflicts

The European Commission is pursuing a circular bioeconomy to tackle pressing sustainability challenges, such as climate change and fossil dependency. Previous bioeconomy policy studies demonstrated the existence of competing bioeconomy discourses in the European Union. However, it remains nebulous how such discursive conflicts emerge and change, particularly in online settings. In this paper, we provide a more in-depth analysis of how argumentative changes of actors alter the network of online dynamic discourse coalitions. We base our findings on interviews and a qualitative discourse network analysis of 9983 tweets about European Union bioeconomy policies from the period 2008–2021. Our results indicate that initially, expert debates centred around storylines on bioeconomy advantages. After the 2012 Bioeconomy Strategy, the debate diversified with the entry of new actors and storylines. Two discourse coalitions, ‘Green future’ and ‘Planetary boundaries’, emerged around conflicting storyline clusters. In the aftermath of the 2018 Bioeconomy Strategy update, the debate simplified into core argumentations of few, highly conflicting storylines, leading to a polarization of the two discourse coalitions. Storyline hijacking further added to polarization and conflict. Understanding the evolution of online dynamic discourse coalitions provides new opportunities for practitioners to open up discourses towards storylines from other parts of the discourse network. This can help to prevent locking-in the limited range of solutions in congruence with the dominant ‘Green future’ discourse. [Display omitted] •The future of the bioeconomy in the EU is discussed controversially on X/Twitter.•Storyline diversification and simplification dynamics led to polarization.•The EU Commission is almost exclusively part of one side of the discourse network.•EU bioeconomy debates head towards a problematic discursive lock-in.•To open up the debate, include ideas of other parts of the discourse network.