The Climate Scientist, Katharine Hayhoe, tells a story about leading a workshop on how climate affects agriculture in Texas. One farmer came up to her afterward, shaking his head. “Everything you said makes sense, and I’d like to agree with you,” he confessed. “But if I agree with you, I have to agree with Al Gore, and I could never do that.”
That is such a crucial insight into the human mind. We tend to resist messaging perceived as threatening our identity and deep-rooted beliefs.
That’s why for a climate message to resonate, it needs to be framed in a way that aligns with the values and worldview of the receiver.
I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel - Maya Angelou
Identity eats facts for breakfast.
That’s why, from a communications point of view, the people's response to facts is more interesting than the facts themselves. If the facts crash with the audience’s beliefs, the identity wins the battle - ten out of ten times.
There are ways to fix that, and I will write a series of solutions following this mini-series focusing on messaging mistakes.
Still, to fix it, we need to understand what has gone wrong with how we have built our narratives and messaging around climate change so far.
The problem with facts
While rational arguments and facts are essential in climate communication, more than relying on them is needed to convince the public to join the green shift.
This statement is easy to prove. After all, during the last three decades, more and more facts about the damaging effect of climate change have been spread vigorously. Still, the overall level of public concern hasn’t changed much.
A recent Norwegian study from Cicero showed that no more than ten percent of the population is “deeply worried” about climate change.
This may be frustrating for climate scientists and the environmental movement, but it is not surprising from a behavioral economics or psychological perspective. We are presented with harsh facts, unclear calls to action, and dark forecasts.
Knowing that the primary function of the human brain is to find ways to survive and thrive, not engaging too much and keep on dealing with the challenges of everyday life, is an understandable reaction.
Facts in the Age of information overload
Some of it comes down to the communication landscape generally. There’s so much noise, so much information to digest.
In her book “The Influential Mind,” neuroscientist Tali Sharot explains how “the tsunami of information we are receiving today can make us even less sensitive to data because we’ve become accustomed to finding support for absolutely anything we want to believe, with a simple click of the mouse.”
The recognized climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe comes to the mind-boggling conclusion that all the climate studies scientists keep publishing with more and more facts in them may actually be contributing to the polarization of beliefs about climate change rather than helping to dispel it.
The primary (and incorrect) assumption behind mainstream climate communication
Frequently, the basic premise behind massive climate communication campaigns is that people don’t know enough. This is also known as the knowledge deficit model. The natural way to solve this problem is to provide more information.
One classic example is the 200-dollar Big Mac from Raj Patel’s book “The Value of Nothing,” where the author tries to show the real cost of a hamburger if we consider the whole value chain footprint of this red meat-based product.
What some climate communicators hear: This is a brilliant visual example of showing the actual footprint of products.
What most consumers hear: They tell me to be ashamed of myself the next time I eat a hamburger).
It is so rational, so clever. And it doesn’t work, at least from a communications perspective.
The UN General Secretary pushes the Code Red button, but even if we are as alarmed as he wants us to be, we still don’t know how to put skin in the game. Scary facts without a clear call to action may leave us in a state of hopelessness.
Even well-informed individuals can rationally do nothing if they see no viable actions to take - Pidgeon and Fischoff
Stories matter
The main climate narratives have mainly been disaster narratives. I guess that’s why more than 25 percent of 15 years old Norwegians report a high level of climate anxiety.
And even more alarming, surveys show that only 1 in 4 children and young people aged 8 to 19 believe the world will be able to solve the climate and environmental problems we face.
This whole approach of ringing the alarm bell louder needs to be revised. It hasn't helped and will probably not happen in the future.
I want to tell my kids a better story
To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing - Raymond Williams
It is vital to have more widespread support for the green shift because it forces the authorities and businesses to act.
So we need to try a new approach.
Climate communicators must speak to people's hearts and emotions. We need to tell a story about the green shift that people actually want to be a part of.
This narrative should tap into people's values, hopes, and aspirations for the future and paint a picture of a better world achievable through collective action.
Tell an inclusive and empowering story, making people feel like they are part of the solution, not the problem.
By involving a multitude of groups in creating shared meaning, we can make climate communications less universal and more social. When we do, we circumvent the first major barrier to conventional climate communications: psychological distance in time, space, and locus of control - Per Espen Stoknes
Tell stories about climate change that gives meaning to science in the context of people's
everyday lives.
More on that later. Next week, we’ll tap into Messaing Mistake #3 - Ignoring the traditional industry. Sign up underneath to get a weekly update on a radical new model for climate messaging and storytelling!
See you!
Comments