For at least three decades, we’ve known that climate change is happening and that a lot of technology is needed to fix it. Meanwhile, instead of solving the problem, total carbon emissions due to human activity have doubled.
We are on a path to catastrophic climate change—and climate communication is part of the blame.
Climate change is a systemic issue, and it will take concerted action from politicians and industry to solve it. But they won’t act until the issue is taken seriously enough by voters and consumers. This is where the communication failure comes in.
Two major issues have contributed to this failure: the politicization of climate change, and the continued use of ineffective communication tactics by climate activists within business, government and non-governmental organizations. These issues are very interconnected and, frustratingly, we know which methods of communication can work. There is a lot of evidence, it is ignored.
The politics of climate change
Until the 1990s, climate change was a controversial issue in the US and elsewhere. George HW Bush talked about it in his 1992 election campaign as the Republican presidential candidate. In fact, in 1991 78% of Americans identified as naturalistsand Democrats and Republicans alike may use this term for themselves.
By 2016, Democrats were twice as likely as Republicans to identify as environmentalists, and the overall percentage had fallen to 41%. It was a nation. The oil industry’s successful lobbying and Republican disinterest, as well as reluctance, later contributed to the politicization of climate change, which further undermined action. But climate activists should take another charge.
Climate communication is often framed in terms of collective action, compassion, and philanthropy, or as part of revolution and rebellion. Research shows how these frames appeal to the left but can be excluded from those in the center and right. There is nothing inherently left-wing about climate action. It can easily be framed as a moral and patriotic duty to protect the purity of nature, or to protect national heritage and economic stability—both of which appeal to right-wing audiences. We are beginning to see politicians using these structures, but few and relatively recently.
There are similar stories about messengers. Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Greta Thunberg are very impressive people, but they are not relatable to everyone. When Tim Walz, America’s Dad, spoke about climate change recently, it was a refreshing example of the right kind of speaker needed to increase climate appeal.
Limits of knowledge and urgency
Outside of hard politics, there are other issues around climate communication. For a long time, the focus was on helping people understand the issue. Basic understanding is necessary for people to engage, but behavior change theory has proven that knowledge and understanding are not enough to drive action. Conversely, people often do things they don’t understand. Many people do not understand economics, but in democracies around the world, perceived economic competence is always one of the most important factors for voters.
More recently, climate communication has shifted its focus from building understanding to conveying urgency. In 2019, I Caretaker updated its style guide to call climate change a “climate crisis,” one of many organizations hoping the new language will improve the emergency. The name of the names was well received by the already convinced people, but there is no evidence that it had an impact on the wider public debate.
In fact, this type of “emergency framing” can lead people to perceive the communication as less reliable, find it more inappropriate to engage with, or even create “boomerang effects” that increase unwanted behavior as people reject the message. By 2021, research had shown the “emergency framework” of climate change had no positive impact on public debate on the issue.
Stop preaching to the choir
The result is that today, although many people around the world “believe” in climate change, action remains far from what is needed. It is not usually one of the top priorities for research on public concerns and political agendas.
To change that, climate communicators need to adopt evidence-based approaches. It may mean using language and images that—or climate activists—don’t like, framing the same behavior or patriotic duty that is most associated with environmental conservation.
There have been signs that some politicians are starting to get this. Kamala Harris’ team seems to understand the need to use patriotic language. They are continuing something that began under President Joe Biden, who linked climate change to national security, making clear the patriotism of investing in climate change. This method has already been successful. In the UK, Zero Hour, a campaign to pass stricter environmental laws, builds on its environment (including a bee—very popular in the UK—in its logo), which is a very broad symbol and attracts support from conservative politicians.
Focus on structural relevance
Researchers in psychology, linguistics, and behavioral economics have been doing work directly related to climate change for decades. And throughout this research, there is one clear theme: To effectively address a problem like climate change, you need to bring it closer to your audience’s lives and experiences.
To find the right approach, you need to know who you are talking to and be clear about what you are talking about. Instead of asking, “How can I make them understand climate change?” or “How can I make them feel a sense of urgency?” you have to ask, “How can I make the climate change thing relevant to them?” Research is full of examples of this, from language that will appeal to Christians or TV show viewers, to choosing images that capture people’s interests.
A classic photo of a polar bear in a melting snow is probably not going to work as well as landscape impact photos that show people in the community, even if they aren’t as good. Similarly, messages that are close to people’s interests and worldview are likely to be more effective. For example, among devout Christians, references to “protecting God’s creation” and the concept of stewardship make messages more attractive and appealing.
Being more specific about the change you want to cause is also important. Whether your focus is reducing energy use or food waste, or driving the adoption of renewable energy or public transport, you need to focus on the challenges and benefits of that specifically, not climate change in general. When you talk to people in a certain area, you need to talk about the benefits and implications of it that place. Some research has suggested something as simple as highlighting the impact of climate change on local birds can be enough to engage new audiences.
With this level of specificity about audience and topic, you’ll be able to sift through available research for findings to make your communications more effective. More importantly, you’ll be framing your message in a way that gives it the best chance of getting through the echo chamber of climate activism.
The reason why people vote for someone who they believe is good in economics, even if they don’t understand economics themselves, is because they know he is important to them. They know that it is deeply related to their lives. The same can happen with climate change.
Source link
