A New Toolkit for Communicating Climate Action

n an environment where people find it increasingly uncomfortable to discuss anything they view as political with someone who disagrees—and where the presentation of facts is often felt as an attack—we need a new approach to communicating climate action that invites people in.

Climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change, but public agreement continues to lag to a troubling degree. Meanwhile, we know that we require the political will that comes only with broad consensus to take effective climate action. Clearly, leaving behind those who are skeptical of the need for strong climate action is a losing strategy.

To win—to effect strong and sustained climate action—we need their support.

At World in 2050’s inaugural Innovation Lab, launched earlier this year, a group of experts, scholars, practitioners, policy makers, and concerned students from six continents discussed this problem, among others. This article is an articulation of recommendations that arose from this collective intelligence lab.

Climate advocates are already working to more effectively engage with those who don’t support robust climate action—and while there are some interesting ideas, results remain mixed. This is partly because those opposed to robust climate action come from a variety of backgrounds. Thus, no single angle on communicating climate action suits all audiences. Here, we propose a new approach—a toolkit—for more informed and empathetic (and hopefully effective) climate communication.

Connection, not Condemnation

When climate advocates talk about those opposed to robust action, we typically refer to them as “skeptics” or “deniers.” We often consider them to be set in their ways, part of a greater problem and unable or unwilling to be part of future solutions. While these descriptors may be rhetorically satisfying and not wholly inaccurate, they contribute to an increasingly us-versus-them atmosphere.

This dysfunction has been recognized elsewhere, and efforts have been made by some climate advocates to broaden the scope of how we think about and talk to those opposed to robust climate action. Yet negative assumptions informing the current climate communication standard prevail, meaning these new models often adopt negative taxonomies. Not only is this unhelpful, but it reinforces trends we’re observing across social spaces where engaging with those you disagree with is uncomfortable and often feels like you are under attack.

We must find ways to engage empathetically with those who reject climate actions despite these chasms in understanding, because the only successful climate action solutions will be co-created across all segments of society. Those who don’t support climate action also play an active role in influencing their governments and business cultures and cannot be ignored. They vote. They advocate. They influence their colleagues and loved ones.

One concept which can help us do better is “meeting them where they are,” an approach used across fields from social work to medicine to marketing. This approach requires research, patience, and above all empathy. When engaging with somebody who might be skeptical of our aims, we would do well to work out what beliefs or preferences inform their disagreement and acknowledge the validity of those beliefs or preferences to those we are engaging with.

There are many reasons individuals may not support climate action. Indeed, for many, climate change is solely viewed through a political lens, making it impossible to weigh the import and urgency of what is taking place. Engaging more effectively requires climate advocates to acknowledge that most of those resistant to robust climate action are acting from perspectives that have compelling internal logics, motivated by interests and allegiances they see as virtuous. Meeting them where they are means we acknowledge and respect these internal logics and look for more limited points of agreement from which we can begin to build common understanding, as opposed to the more common practice of articulating their stances as villainous or naive.

As a climate action advocate, how do you engage with someone who is more reticent about action and meet them where they are without alienating them? A taxonomy can be very useful as a model of understanding, in a general way, different logics that can underpin reticence about climate action.

We propose a new framework—a new taxonomy—below to help categorize, and thus better understand, those opposed to climate action.

A Better Taxonomy of Climate Action Reticence

We see this taxonomy as one potentially powerful tool in a toolkit for better discourse, but it is not authoritative. Alternate taxonomies may be useful as well, though we would emphasize the need to avoid negative taxonomies. Also, no taxonomy perfectly explains each person—a taxonomy is best thought of as delineating tropes, not defining individuals.

Here is our proposal for a more healthy, empathetic taxonomy.

Skeptics: Skeptics are the climate change “doubters.” They feel as though they have done their research and engaged with the broader literature and debate. However, they have been swayed by misinformation or disinformation.

Agnostics: Agnostics are those who are disengaged. They may believe climate change won’t have a major impact on them. They may have become overwhelmed by overly politicized debate and withdrawn out of confusion or frustration. They may simply remain unconvinced.

Rejectors: Rejectors are those who are convinced that taking robust, immediate climate action is the wrong call. They are firm in their reasons for rejecting this action. Reasons for rejection include (and people can embody multiple types):

1. The Distrustful: They believe the scientific community is often biased and overly political. They likely also believe misinformation/disinformation they’ve gleaned from alternative sources they trust.
2. The Rankers: They believe that climate change is real, is a problem, and something should be done about it. However, they believe that other problems are more pressing and immediate. Their rankings could be based on several factors including (but not limited to): the perceived economic cost of action, technological optimism, and personal interest or investment in another priority.
3. The Party-Liners: They are less interested in debates about the science of climate change and are more interested in affiliating themselves with what they perceive as the positions of their political tribe, however they define what that tribe is.

Notice we did not once describe someone who rejects climate action as being inauthentic or acting out of malice or spite. We acknowledge that realistically there are those who do. But we wager they are the minority, and that a positive approach to communication on climate action—the modus of the tool kit we propose below—must be built upon a foundation of optimism.

A New Communications Tool Kit

While no communication tool kit will address every situation or interaction, we strive here to present a positive and empathetic approach to engaging in dialogue with those opposed to climate change. Our suggested approach speaks to both the message communicated, and the manner in which it is communicated. Note that we don’t advocate compromising on your values, only recognizing that we can’t expect the climate action reticent to do so, either.

1. The approach to dialogue is critical. When engaging with someone who does not support climate action, this must be a two-way discussion rather than a lecture. Act with humility and respect, aiming for a productive discussion. Productive in this case means “meeting them where they are,” finding areas where your interests and concerns intersect and seeking limited, mutual gains. It does not mean “winning” a debate or converting them to your view.
2. Acknowledge the backgrounds of those you are speaking with. Our taxonomy helps with this, but also consider religious, cultural, education, economic, and political backgrounds. Knowing something about their values and interests ahead of time helps you act with empathy, avoiding terminology that feels adversarial or patronizing.
3. Talk about things that matter. At this point, climate change impacts the great majority of us–directly or indirectly. Identify real and discernible impacts of climate change that will matter to who you’re speaking with, and speak in focused terms of impact mitigation. This is a small step, but in a politicized climate where all the steps currently are backward even a small step forward feels like a leap.

Discussing climate action is hard on both sides of the conversation. Climate change has become so politicized, with groups on all sides fearing their “opponents” seek the destruction (through malice or ignorance) of their legitimate interests. To date, this means that discussions about climate change are an engagement to be fought and won. For all parties, it feels as though a lot is on the line in each of these engagements. It’s stressful. It’s adversarial. It isn’t working.

Our approach is different. Rather than seeking zero-sum victories over a debate opponent, we advocate seeking small, shared victories based on limited common interests that we can identify with a less adversarial and more empathetic mindset. These near-term small victories can mean real climate impact mitigation that is sorely needed, today. In the longer term, this building of understanding means a less fraught environment for discourse and the possibility for more robust climate action—so long as the core interests and values of all parties continue to be observed.

In any case, the current approach to communicating climate action isn’t working. It’s time to rethink the process. We hope this helps.