David Fenton’s Communication Rules for Activists:
- CRAFT SIMPLE MESSAGES EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND. Use short, clear, unpretentious language already in common use. Avoid jargon and wonky technical terms, and above all, avoid rhetoric. Not: “We have to cut carbon emissions.” Rather: “We have to stop pollution.” We may not like “Make America Great Again,” but it worked.
- PRACTICE FRAMING ISSUES YOUR WAY. People think in what linguists call frames—existing circuitry in the brain formed by years of exposure to language. So, frame issues to activate people’s existing neural wiring. For example, when you say “pollution,” everyone thinks “bad.” When you say “carbon,” most people don’t know what to think, as there is little existing circuitry attached to the word. Also, don’t get suckered by responding to the other side’s framing—you’re only helping them if you repeat it. Not: “We aren’t taking away anyone’s jobs.” Rather: “Those who block climate action are allowing extreme weather to destroy our economy and jobs.”
- USE SYMBOLISM. Incorporate familiar images and phrases with cultural resonance (another form of framing). An apple a day keeps the doctor away. Three strikes and you’re out. Don’t judge a book by its cover. Pick symbols that are sticky, hard to forget. For example: How much heat energy is climate change trapping on Earth? The same energy as exploding 600,000 atomic bombs a day.
Prominent cognitive linguist George Lakoff argues that our comprehension of the world is deeply influenced by typically unconscious structures known as "frames". These frames not only shape our knowledge, but also guide our thinking and communication. For instance, the frame associated with "hospital" invokes roles and activities such as doctors, nurses, and operations. Rooted in our brain's neural circuits, frames get activated every time we communicate. Many frames connect directly to our emotional centers, highlighting the inseparability of emotion from rational thought. In political and social discourse, the repetition of certain frames acts to normalize specific ideologies.1
In contrast to traditional the view of reason as purely conscious, unemotional, and logical — which originated in the Enlightenment period — human reasoning is largely unconscious and rooted in frames, metaphors, narratives and emotions. In climate change communication, it is crucial to frame facts in an effective way — contrary to the widely used information deficit model, simply presenting raw facts without the appropriate frame often results in the information being ignored or misunderstood, as it may not align with an individual's pre-existing cognitive frames.
Effective narratives involve not only selecting the right words to activate desired frames, but also constructing those frames in the audience's minds. This task becomes particularly challenging given the deep-rooted and often erroneous frames people might already hold, like seeing nature and humans as separate entities (another notion which originated during Enlightenment). Lakoff argues that the environmental movement needs to simplify its message — often lacking relatable, coherent frames that can be communicated succinctly. Instead of long explanations, environmentalists need clear, compelling slogans that can easily activate the desired frames in the public's mind. This approach, combined with value-based narratives and a thorough understanding of the broader context, could significantly amplify the movement's impact and reach.1
David Fenton
How to Influence Public Opinion
The brain learns from the repetition of simple messages and visuals — the key is not just in these simple elements, but their frequent repetition. We're aware of what messages and imagery work, but they're not being deployed as needed. To influence public opinion and create urgency, these elements need to be deployed repetitively across various avenues. The next step is to secure social media advertising aimed at diverse audiences and to get cultural figures, influencers, and individuals with large social media followings to actively participate in this educational effort. This process, though, has proven challenging, especially when it comes to raising funds.
Even high-leverage initiatives like building and maintaining a large influencer network have trouble securing adequate financial support. This financial hurdle prevents the scale-up of successful conservative-targeted climate videos, despite their proven efficacy. The delivery of repetitive, emotionally touching, and engaging content is crucial, as this is what influences public perception. Once you’ve achieved awareness, it's essential to provide clear avenues for people to act - a feature currently lacking, which is, to put it mildly, quite regrettable.
If most people were asked where they could take action on climate change, they would be clueless. Current platforms are riddled with jargon, overly dogmatic language, and are focused heavily on identity politics, making them off-putting to the average person. We know how to create more accessible platforms, but it's not happening. Many in the realm of climate philanthropy for communications operate under the fallacy that great policy ideas will simply be adopted. That's the daunting reality we're up against.
Recent climate communication campaigns have faced challenges due to lack of strategic consistency, making them less adaptive to complex and evolving public discourses around climate change. This is thought to have contributed to inconsistent poll findings, diminished media coverage, and polarized public opinions about the issue. Climate communicators use different strategies to achieve different goals, such as encouraging individual behavior change or influencing policy. Historic campaigns have been effective in marrying societal and systemic change through education, mobilization, and promoting solutions — but opponents of climate action have since caught up, launching counter-campaigns and spreading doubts about climate science. The climate movement has also repeatedly failed to rally significant public demand for rapid and broad-scale policy changes.2
The Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign is a noteworthy example of aligning communication with potential real-world influence. The initiative synced its messaging and mobilization with available opportunities for policy interventions to achieve systemic change. The movement is thought to have contributed to few of the US Energy Department’s 150 coal plant permit proposals being authorized. Beyond Coal’s influence became evident when major financial institutions began reevaluating their financing for coal projects and deeming them financially unstable. Sierra Club's success suggests that climate communications should be reconceptualized — not just as individual cognitive processes or framing but as strategic interventions within power networks.2
Lucy Von Sturmer
Every Expert Needs to Become a Communicator
We have reached a moment in time when our media cycles, and the messages we see on billboards, in the press and online, are either paralyzing, depressing or defeatist. In stark contrast, the influential and revered communications industry — with its glossy campaigns, memorable slogans and aspirational images — have been selling us lifestyles of overconsumption for decades.
The good news is, there is a growing movement3 within this industry to write a new story - to understand and unlock the power of narratives to mobilize citizens towards new futures. Storytelling is emerging as one of the key fundamental tools to drive change, as without effective communications, solution holders are failing to gain traction, and greenwashing is diverting goodwill into delay.
We know the solutions to the climate crisis already exist - and that to create real change we don't need ‘new inventions’. Just as every communicator needs to become a climate expert, every climate expert needs to become a communicator.
Climate change communication has traditionally relied on the knowledge deficit model, which assumes that people will act if provided with accurate information. But research increasingly shows that values, worldviews and political ideology are much more influential in shaping people’s view on and engagement with climate issues.4 Values and worldviews also influence how much the public trusts organizations and individuals communicating a given issue: Because many individuals do not have the necessary time, education and interest to engage with climate science, they rely on trusted sources to help shape their opinion.
How we understand climate change is largely shaped by the stories and narratives we are exposed to. These stories influence our perceptions and risk attitudes towards climate change, influencing both individual behavior and action taken at the institutional and systemic level. Stories help to define problems, identify causes and present potential solutions, as well as assigning moral responsibilities. Research has found that narrative messaging is more effective than scientific messaging, as it is more memorable and people are more likely to follow actions embedded in its messaging.5
Jones identified three types of stories which are commonly used to make sense of climate change:6
- The Egalitarian Story explains climate change as a moral issue and the result of overconsumption. Profit-driven corporations (and governments who facilitate them) are portrayed as villains, and environmentalists as heroes.
- The Hierarchical Story chooses mismanaged societal systems and excessive economic and population growth as the cause of climate change and argues for decisive interventions at the government level. Impartial scientists are portrayed as heroes in this narrative.
- The Individualistic Story frames climate change as either a hoax or not very serious, arguing for market forces to take care of the issue as individuals innovate and adapt to climate impacts.
Simon Bushell, Géraldine Satre Buisson, and Mark Workman from Imperial College London, and Thomas Colley from King’s College London come up with further examples of narratives, which fall into the three story categories:7
The importance of language is central in addressing the communications challenge — we urgently need a change in the words and narratives around climate change, bridging the ideological gap and building the political will necessary for robust action. Climate communication expert Susan Joy Hassol suggests reframing scientific terminologies for better public understanding and adjusting the vocabulary around climate solutions to appeal to conservatives, emphasizing entrepreneurship and market-based solutions. Rather than "regulate" and "restrict", terms like "innovation" and "ingenuity" could be more effective in achieving wider acceptance. Hassol also underscores the need to rephrase terms such as 'greenhouse gasses' to 'heat-trapping pollution', and 'climate change' to 'human-caused climate disruption' to more accurately reflect their implications. Effective communication can help align perceptions with the severity of climate change, mobilize action, and make climate policy a top priority.8
Karen Land Short
Why We Need Brands on Board
In the past eighteen months, we have been building the foundations of a life-centric approach to sustainability. On one hand, we want to address the challenge of complex human lives and unpredictable behaviors. On the other, we need to solve the conundrum of rising emissions emanating from personal consumption and related questions about how we can increase levels of sustainable consumption globally.
If sustainability is not yet mainstream despite organizations’ existing efforts, we’re asking: What are we missing? How do we make sustainability relevant and actionable for everyone?
At COP26 in November 2021, this life-centric approach began with the Consumer Reality Check. Building on ethnographic and experimental research, we said people were already at maximum capacity and struggling to live more sustainably. We argued that organizations should ‘reduce the burden’ on people by enabling more sustainable behaviors. We still believe this now, but to bring everyone into sustainable consumption more significantly, we must look beyond the idea of making sustainability cheaper and easier for people.
We need much broader and deeper cultural shifts that won’t happen unless we change how brands and companies talk about sustainability and interact with people. The narrative needs to change, but the power balance between people and organizations needs to change too. We need to stop asking “How can we make humans more sustainable?”, and start asking: “How can we make sustainability more human?”
While there’s been a lot of focus on closing the ‘say-do gap’ it’s closing the relevancy gap between organizations and people that matters. Getting each side more aligned when it comes to sustainability. In our recent Our Human Moment films and reports we began to lay out what this new approach might look like. We focus on human values – the deep-rooted reasons why people might behave in one way over another. And we’re already using this new framing of the problem and the route out of it to reframe how organizations are attacking the sustainability challenge.
While the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ are often used interchangeably, the latter has become increasingly polarized in recent years.9 Research on framings of climate change found that the term global warming had been increasingly associated with hoax frames.10 The language we use is important — while it is unlikely to have a substantial impact on those on the extremes of climate change opinions (for example, deniers or activists), people with moderate beliefs are more likely to be affected by framings.9 Metaphors matter, too: A study on climate change metaphors with 3,000 Americans found that reading about the “war” against global warming led to greater agreement with scientific evidence, compared to people who read about the “race” against global warming — possible because war framed induce negative emotions and concepts such as death, destruction and struggle.11
In 2019, The Guardian revised its style guide to use terms that more precisely reflect the severity of climate change. For example, it now favors the terms "climate emergency”, “climate crisis” or “climate breakdown" over "climate change", and "global heating" instead of "global warming". At the time, editor-in-chief Katharine Viner argued that words like "climate change" seem passive given dire predictions by scientists. This change aligned with the evolving terminology of climate scientists, global organizations, and political entities, and was accompanied by global carbon dioxide levels in the Guardian’s daily weather reports.12
Ben Walker
There's a pressing need to transform the discourse around climate action, shifting our focus from the costs associated with a green transition to the opportunities available to workers, communities and society as part of a just transition. This change in perspective is particularly relevant when discussing the built environment, which accounts for nearly 40% of global carbon emissions. Unfortunately, our narratives often fail to convey both the magnitude of the challenges we face and the opportunities at hand. At Laudes Foundation, we’re taking steps to rectify this critical oversight and drive meaningful change.
Buildings are not just where we sleep and work; they are where we grow-up, raise families and share celebrations. Housing is a human right. Yet too often buildings are reduced to an item on a balance sheet. By redefining the value we assign to the built environment, we can both tackle the emissions from construction and buildings, and address the global housing crisis that climate change has further intensified.
Our built environment program has to date invested more than €40 million into supporting foundational change through targets, measurement, and regulation. However, we recognize that change needs more than funding — it needs stories. That's why we're funding a first-of-its-kind study to undertake a review of the narrative perceptions of how the built environment relates to a just climate transition.
This study, conducted by 89up and Demos Helsinki, is examining both existing debates and research, as well as how different demographics and geographies resonate with these narratives, to define a new narrative which will have universal appeal, is easy to understand and can be transformed into key messages which will form the bedrock of the transition.
Our ultimate goal is to create an enduring narrative for the built environment. One that corresponds with the proportionality with the challenge. One that is echoed each time a housing policy is written, an investment proposal presented, or a new emissions campaign launched. By focusing on this narrative shift, we can catalyze transformative change and equip industry leaders and policymakers with the insights needed for a sustainable transition.
Understanding and effectively communicating about climate change is crucial for inspiring wide-scale action. When discussing climate change, the way information is presented can greatly influence public reactions and decisions. Clear, consistent, and relatable messaging, repeated frequently, is essential for successful communication. As we work to address climate change, it's vital to ensure our communication methods are straightforward, actionable, and can drive real change. Everyone, from experts to brands, has a role to play in this communication effort. But coming up with simple messages isn’t enough — we also need to empower and break free from the persistent doom narratives which have taken hold of popular climate discourse.
Is Doomism the New Delay?
When we discuss climate change, the way we discuss potential futures dramatically influences our public response. Many of us are inundated with images and stories of melting ice caps, raging wildfires, and species extinctions. This deluge of negative information, while factual, can often induce a sense of fatalism. A significant portion of the population, both young and old, believe that the future looks grim. Such bleak perspectives lead many to feel that the situation is hopeless — but overly positive framings highlighting only successes can lead to complacency, and the belief that the necessary work is being done already.
Keep reading- Lakoff G. Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment. Environ Commun. 2010;4(1):70-81. doi:10.1080/17524030903529749
- Cox JR. Beyond Frames: Recovering the Strategic in Climate Communication. Environ Commun. 2010;4(1):122-133. doi:10.1080/17524030903516555
- Creatives for Climate. Our Story. Creatives for Climate Community. Accessed August 30, 2023. https://www.creativesforclimate.community/c/start-here
- Han H, Ahn SW. Youth Mobilization to Stop Global Climate Change: Narratives and Impact. Sustainability. 2020;12(10):4127. doi:10.3390/su12104127
- Jones MD. Cultural Characters and Climate Change: How Heroes Shape Our Perception of Climate Science. Soc Sci Q. 2013;95(1):1-39. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12043
- Benjamin D, Por HH, Budescu D. Climate Change Versus Global Warming: Who Is Susceptible to the Framing of Climate Change? Environ Behav. 2017;49(7):745-770. doi:10.1177/0013916516664382
- Bushell S, Buisson GS, Workman M, Colley T. Strategic narratives in climate change: Towards a unifying narrative to address the action gap on climate change. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2017;28:39-49. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.04.001
- Hassol SJ. The Right Words Are Crucial to Solving Climate Change. Scientific American. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0223-64
- Clarke J, Corner A, Webster R. Public engagement for a 1.5 °C world: Shifting gear and scaling up. Oxf Clim Outreach. Published online 2018. https://climateoutreach.org/reports/ipcc-public-engagement-1-5c/
- Jang SM, Hart PS. Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global warming” across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data. Glob Environ Change. 2015;32:11-17. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.010
- Hendricks R. Communicating climate change: Focus on the framing, not just the facts. The Conversation. Published March 6, 2017. Accessed May 23, 2023. http://theconversation.com/communicating-climate-change-focus-on-the-framing-not-just-the-facts-73028
- Carrington D. Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment. Published May 17, 2019. Accessed August 7, 2023.
Figure 65: Workshop for Climate Creatives - Source: Creatives for Climate
David Fenton Rules for Activists - Source: MSNBC
David Fenton’s Communication Rules for Activists:
- CRAFT SIMPLE MESSAGES EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND. Use short, clear, unpretentious language already in common use. Avoid jargon and wonky technical terms, and above all, avoid rhetoric. Not: “We have to cut carbon emissions.” Rather: “We have to stop pollution.” We may not like “Make America Great Again,” but it worked.
- PRACTICE FRAMING ISSUES YOUR WAY. People think in what linguists call frames—existing circuitry in the brain formed by years of exposure to language. So, frame issues to activate people’s existing neural wiring. For example, when you say “pollution,” everyone thinks “bad.” When you say “carbon,” most people don’t know what to think, as there is little existing circuitry attached to the word. Also, don’t get suckered by responding to the other side’s framing—you’re only helping them if you repeat it. Not: “We aren’t taking away anyone’s jobs.” Rather: “Those who block climate action are allowing extreme weather to destroy our economy and jobs.”
- USE SYMBOLISM. Incorporate familiar images and phrases with cultural resonance (another form of framing). An apple a day keeps the doctor away. Three strikes and you’re out. Don’t judge a book by its cover. Pick symbols that are sticky, hard to forget. For example: How much heat energy is climate change trapping on Earth? The same energy as exploding 600,000 atomic bombs a day.
Prominent cognitive linguist George Lakoff argues that our comprehension of the world is deeply influenced by typically unconscious structures known as "frames". These frames not only shape our knowledge, but also guide our thinking and communication. For instance, the frame associated with "hospital" invokes roles and activities such as doctors, nurses, and operations. Rooted in our brain's neural circuits, frames get activated every time we communicate. Many frames connect directly to our emotional centers, highlighting the inseparability of emotion from rational thought. In political and social discourse, the repetition of certain frames acts to normalize specific ideologies.1
In contrast to traditional the view of reason as purely conscious, unemotional, and logical — which originated in the Enlightenment period — human reasoning is largely unconscious and rooted in frames, metaphors, narratives and emotions. In climate change communication, it is crucial to frame facts in an effective way — contrary to the widely used information deficit model, simply presenting raw facts without the appropriate frame often results in the information being ignored or misunderstood, as it may not align with an individual's pre-existing cognitive frames.
Effective narratives involve not only selecting the right words to activate desired frames, but also constructing those frames in the audience's minds. This task becomes particularly challenging given the deep-rooted and often erroneous frames people might already hold, like seeing nature and humans as separate entities (another notion which originated during Enlightenment). Lakoff argues that the environmental movement needs to simplify its message — often lacking relatable, coherent frames that can be communicated succinctly. Instead of long explanations, environmentalists need clear, compelling slogans that can easily activate the desired frames in the public's mind. This approach, combined with value-based narratives and a thorough understanding of the broader context, could significantly amplify the movement's impact and reach.1
David Fenton
How to Influence Public Opinion
The brain learns from the repetition of simple messages and visuals — the key is not just in these simple elements, but their frequent repetition. We're aware of what messages and imagery work, but they're not being deployed as needed. To influence public opinion and create urgency, these elements need to be deployed repetitively across various avenues. The next step is to secure social media advertising aimed at diverse audiences and to get cultural figures, influencers, and individuals with large social media followings to actively participate in this educational effort. This process, though, has proven challenging, especially when it comes to raising funds.
Even high-leverage initiatives like building and maintaining a large influencer network have trouble securing adequate financial support. This financial hurdle prevents the scale-up of successful conservative-targeted climate videos, despite their proven efficacy. The delivery of repetitive, emotionally touching, and engaging content is crucial, as this is what influences public perception. Once you’ve achieved awareness, it's essential to provide clear avenues for people to act - a feature currently lacking, which is, to put it mildly, quite regrettable.
If most people were asked where they could take action on climate change, they would be clueless. Current platforms are riddled with jargon, overly dogmatic language, and are focused heavily on identity politics, making them off-putting to the average person. We know how to create more accessible platforms, but it's not happening. Many in the realm of climate philanthropy for communications operate under the fallacy that great policy ideas will simply be adopted. That's the daunting reality we're up against.
Recent climate communication campaigns have faced challenges due to lack of strategic consistency, making them less adaptive to complex and evolving public discourses around climate change. This is thought to have contributed to inconsistent poll findings, diminished media coverage, and polarized public opinions about the issue. Climate communicators use different strategies to achieve different goals, such as encouraging individual behavior change or influencing policy. Historic campaigns have been effective in marrying societal and systemic change through education, mobilization, and promoting solutions — but opponents of climate action have since caught up, launching counter-campaigns and spreading doubts about climate science. The climate movement has also repeatedly failed to rally significant public demand for rapid and broad-scale policy changes.2
The Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign is a noteworthy example of aligning communication with potential real-world influence. The initiative synced its messaging and mobilization with available opportunities for policy interventions to achieve systemic change. The movement is thought to have contributed to few of the US Energy Department’s 150 coal plant permit proposals being authorized. Beyond Coal’s influence became evident when major financial institutions began reevaluating their financing for coal projects and deeming them financially unstable. Sierra Club's success suggests that climate communications should be reconceptualized — not just as individual cognitive processes or framing but as strategic interventions within power networks.2
Lucy Von Sturmer
Every Expert Needs to Become a Communicator
We have reached a moment in time when our media cycles, and the messages we see on billboards, in the press and online, are either paralyzing, depressing or defeatist. In stark contrast, the influential and revered communications industry — with its glossy campaigns, memorable slogans and aspirational images — have been selling us lifestyles of overconsumption for decades.
The good news is, there is a growing movement3 within this industry to write a new story - to understand and unlock the power of narratives to mobilize citizens towards new futures. Storytelling is emerging as one of the key fundamental tools to drive change, as without effective communications, solution holders are failing to gain traction, and greenwashing is diverting goodwill into delay.
We know the solutions to the climate crisis already exist - and that to create real change we don't need ‘new inventions’. Just as every communicator needs to become a climate expert, every climate expert needs to become a communicator.
Climate change communication has traditionally relied on the knowledge deficit model, which assumes that people will act if provided with accurate information. But research increasingly shows that values, worldviews and political ideology are much more influential in shaping people’s view on and engagement with climate issues.4 Values and worldviews also influence how much the public trusts organizations and individuals communicating a given issue: Because many individuals do not have the necessary time, education and interest to engage with climate science, they rely on trusted sources to help shape their opinion.
How we understand climate change is largely shaped by the stories and narratives we are exposed to. These stories influence our perceptions and risk attitudes towards climate change, influencing both individual behavior and action taken at the institutional and systemic level. Stories help to define problems, identify causes and present potential solutions, as well as assigning moral responsibilities. Research has found that narrative messaging is more effective than scientific messaging, as it is more memorable and people are more likely to follow actions embedded in its messaging.5
Jones identified three types of stories which are commonly used to make sense of climate change:6
- The Egalitarian Story explains climate change as a moral issue and the result of overconsumption. Profit-driven corporations (and governments who facilitate them) are portrayed as villains, and environmentalists as heroes.
- The Hierarchical Story chooses mismanaged societal systems and excessive economic and population growth as the cause of climate change and argues for decisive interventions at the government level. Impartial scientists are portrayed as heroes in this narrative.
- The Individualistic Story frames climate change as either a hoax or not very serious, arguing for market forces to take care of the issue as individuals innovate and adapt to climate impacts.
Simon Bushell, Géraldine Satre Buisson, and Mark Workman from Imperial College London, and Thomas Colley from King’s College London come up with further examples of narratives, which fall into the three story categories:7
The importance of language is central in addressing the communications challenge — we urgently need a change in the words and narratives around climate change, bridging the ideological gap and building the political will necessary for robust action. Climate communication expert Susan Joy Hassol suggests reframing scientific terminologies for better public understanding and adjusting the vocabulary around climate solutions to appeal to conservatives, emphasizing entrepreneurship and market-based solutions. Rather than "regulate" and "restrict", terms like "innovation" and "ingenuity" could be more effective in achieving wider acceptance. Hassol also underscores the need to rephrase terms such as 'greenhouse gasses' to 'heat-trapping pollution', and 'climate change' to 'human-caused climate disruption' to more accurately reflect their implications. Effective communication can help align perceptions with the severity of climate change, mobilize action, and make climate policy a top priority.8
Karen Land Short
Why We Need Brands on Board
In the past eighteen months, we have been building the foundations of a life-centric approach to sustainability. On one hand, we want to address the challenge of complex human lives and unpredictable behaviors. On the other, we need to solve the conundrum of rising emissions emanating from personal consumption and related questions about how we can increase levels of sustainable consumption globally.
If sustainability is not yet mainstream despite organizations’ existing efforts, we’re asking: What are we missing? How do we make sustainability relevant and actionable for everyone?
At COP26 in November 2021, this life-centric approach began with the Consumer Reality Check. Building on ethnographic and experimental research, we said people were already at maximum capacity and struggling to live more sustainably. We argued that organizations should ‘reduce the burden’ on people by enabling more sustainable behaviors. We still believe this now, but to bring everyone into sustainable consumption more significantly, we must look beyond the idea of making sustainability cheaper and easier for people.
We need much broader and deeper cultural shifts that won’t happen unless we change how brands and companies talk about sustainability and interact with people. The narrative needs to change, but the power balance between people and organizations needs to change too. We need to stop asking “How can we make humans more sustainable?”, and start asking: “How can we make sustainability more human?”
While there’s been a lot of focus on closing the ‘say-do gap’ it’s closing the relevancy gap between organizations and people that matters. Getting each side more aligned when it comes to sustainability. In our recent Our Human Moment films and reports we began to lay out what this new approach might look like. We focus on human values – the deep-rooted reasons why people might behave in one way over another. And we’re already using this new framing of the problem and the route out of it to reframe how organizations are attacking the sustainability challenge.
While the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ are often used interchangeably, the latter has become increasingly polarized in recent years.9 Research on framings of climate change found that the term global warming had been increasingly associated with hoax frames.10 The language we use is important — while it is unlikely to have a substantial impact on those on the extremes of climate change opinions (for example, deniers or activists), people with moderate beliefs are more likely to be affected by framings.9 Metaphors matter, too: A study on climate change metaphors with 3,000 Americans found that reading about the “war” against global warming led to greater agreement with scientific evidence, compared to people who read about the “race” against global warming — possible because war framed induce negative emotions and concepts such as death, destruction and struggle.11
In 2019, The Guardian revised its style guide to use terms that more precisely reflect the severity of climate change. For example, it now favors the terms "climate emergency”, “climate crisis” or “climate breakdown" over "climate change", and "global heating" instead of "global warming". At the time, editor-in-chief Katharine Viner argued that words like "climate change" seem passive given dire predictions by scientists. This change aligned with the evolving terminology of climate scientists, global organizations, and political entities, and was accompanied by global carbon dioxide levels in the Guardian’s daily weather reports.12
Ben Walker
There's a pressing need to transform the discourse around climate action, shifting our focus from the costs associated with a green transition to the opportunities available to workers, communities and society as part of a just transition. This change in perspective is particularly relevant when discussing the built environment, which accounts for nearly 40% of global carbon emissions. Unfortunately, our narratives often fail to convey both the magnitude of the challenges we face and the opportunities at hand. At Laudes Foundation, we’re taking steps to rectify this critical oversight and drive meaningful change.
Buildings are not just where we sleep and work; they are where we grow-up, raise families and share celebrations. Housing is a human right. Yet too often buildings are reduced to an item on a balance sheet. By redefining the value we assign to the built environment, we can both tackle the emissions from construction and buildings, and address the global housing crisis that climate change has further intensified.
Our built environment program has to date invested more than €40 million into supporting foundational change through targets, measurement, and regulation. However, we recognize that change needs more than funding — it needs stories. That's why we're funding a first-of-its-kind study to undertake a review of the narrative perceptions of how the built environment relates to a just climate transition.
This study, conducted by 89up and Demos Helsinki, is examining both existing debates and research, as well as how different demographics and geographies resonate with these narratives, to define a new narrative which will have universal appeal, is easy to understand and can be transformed into key messages which will form the bedrock of the transition.
Our ultimate goal is to create an enduring narrative for the built environment. One that corresponds with the proportionality with the challenge. One that is echoed each time a housing policy is written, an investment proposal presented, or a new emissions campaign launched. By focusing on this narrative shift, we can catalyze transformative change and equip industry leaders and policymakers with the insights needed for a sustainable transition.
Understanding and effectively communicating about climate change is crucial for inspiring wide-scale action. When discussing climate change, the way information is presented can greatly influence public reactions and decisions. Clear, consistent, and relatable messaging, repeated frequently, is essential for successful communication. As we work to address climate change, it's vital to ensure our communication methods are straightforward, actionable, and can drive real change. Everyone, from experts to brands, has a role to play in this communication effort. But coming up with simple messages isn’t enough — we also need to empower and break free from the persistent doom narratives which have taken hold of popular climate discourse.
Figure 65: Workshop for Climate Creatives - Source: Creatives for Climate
David Fenton Rules for Activists - Source: MSNBC
Is Doomism the New Delay?
When we discuss climate change, the way we discuss potential futures dramatically influences our public response. Many of us are inundated with images and stories of melting ice caps, raging wildfires, and species extinctions. This deluge of negative information, while factual, can often induce a sense of fatalism. A significant portion of the population, both young and old, believe that the future looks grim. Such bleak perspectives lead many to feel that the situation is hopeless — but overly positive framings highlighting only successes can lead to complacency, and the belief that the necessary work is being done already.
Keep reading- Lakoff G. Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment. Environ Commun. 2010;4(1):70-81. doi:10.1080/17524030903529749
- Cox JR. Beyond Frames: Recovering the Strategic in Climate Communication. Environ Commun. 2010;4(1):122-133. doi:10.1080/17524030903516555
- Creatives for Climate. Our Story. Creatives for Climate Community. Accessed August 30, 2023. https://www.creativesforclimate.community/c/start-here
- Han H, Ahn SW. Youth Mobilization to Stop Global Climate Change: Narratives and Impact. Sustainability. 2020;12(10):4127. doi:10.3390/su12104127
- Jones MD. Cultural Characters and Climate Change: How Heroes Shape Our Perception of Climate Science. Soc Sci Q. 2013;95(1):1-39. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12043
- Benjamin D, Por HH, Budescu D. Climate Change Versus Global Warming: Who Is Susceptible to the Framing of Climate Change? Environ Behav. 2017;49(7):745-770. doi:10.1177/0013916516664382
- Bushell S, Buisson GS, Workman M, Colley T. Strategic narratives in climate change: Towards a unifying narrative to address the action gap on climate change. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2017;28:39-49. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.04.001
- Hassol SJ. The Right Words Are Crucial to Solving Climate Change. Scientific American. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0223-64
- Clarke J, Corner A, Webster R. Public engagement for a 1.5 °C world: Shifting gear and scaling up. Oxf Clim Outreach. Published online 2018. https://climateoutreach.org/reports/ipcc-public-engagement-1-5c/
- Jang SM, Hart PS. Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global warming” across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data. Glob Environ Change. 2015;32:11-17. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.010
- Hendricks R. Communicating climate change: Focus on the framing, not just the facts. The Conversation. Published March 6, 2017. Accessed May 23, 2023. http://theconversation.com/communicating-climate-change-focus-on-the-framing-not-just-the-facts-73028
- Carrington D. Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment. Published May 17, 2019. Accessed August 7, 2023.
