Editor’s note January 2017: Are you participating in this morning’s #ClimateFacts “Twitter storm” (details here)? We are! And we’ll look forward to keeping up the drumbeat for climate science and activism in years to come, on our Twitter feeds and elsewhere. Of course, how we message is just as important as what we message, so we’re re-posting this helpful one-pager of best practices for powerfully communicating our climate priorities. Onward, fellow climate messengers!
Sometimes those of us who are very deeply immersed in climate communications become so focused on crafting messages that effectively convey certain complex issues, ideas, and policy measures that we forget some of the most fundamental communications rules.
I speak for myself. I should probably stick a Post-It note on my computer screen with a checklist: Is it first and foremost about people? Emotions!! Are you going for the gut or brain? Did you say it in plain language? (In fact, I’m making that sticky note right now).
Based on those most basic, simple yet powerful rules of thumb, Jeremy Porter, a super-smart freelance communications strategist (Jeremy Porter Communications), has summed up nicely how to talk about climate change so that people will care. Noting that most people don’t care at all or very much (or don’t have the time or energy to), Porter insists that it’s not a matter of piling on more facts nor a question of saying “global warming” instead of “climate change.” Instead, we can make global warming more relevant to people by talking about why it matters to them, their families, and their daily lives. One of Porter’s examples really hit home: People don’t want a “safe climate” or a “healthy climate”. They want to be safe and healthy.
Porter reminds us that the language we use to communicate about climate change needs to be simple and uncontroversial. A word like pollution, for example, works better than “carbon emissions.” A person does not have to believe in or understand global warming to care about these things. “People understand pollution,” he explains, “They don’t like it, they think there should be less of it, and they understand it’s bad for their health.”
Porter’s cheat-sheet could almost fit on a sticky note, but a Flashcard works better. (I invite you to stick it somewhere front and center, so you’ll see it as you work.)
The guide is adapted from Jeremy Porter’s guide. His communications recommendations are based on research and recommendations by Drew Westen, professor in the Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University and founder of Westen Strategies, LLC, and partly based on research conducted by Jeremy Porter with Alex Frankel & Associates.
Download Jeremy Porter’s original one-page guide here: How to talk about the climate. And check out his blog here: jrmyprtr.com.
John Day
I think Jeremy Porter’s points are all good and agree that we should keep them in mind when talking or writing about climate change, especially for the general public. The one caveat I have is that it’s also important to consider who your specific audience is when you’re addressing these issues. I think there are plenty of climate change skeptics and others out there who might feel “talked down to” with this approach, for example with the use of the term “pollution” to cover all greenhouse gas emissions.
Robert A Brown
OK, GW is a pollution that will: expose YOU to extreme weather next year; expose your children to an expensive, hazardous life in a few years; most likely cause your (& your progeny) death by starvation, extreme pollution and or drowning within a decade or two. These are statistics based on observations of trends over the past 50 years.
RDPence
Interesting approach to the ultimate macro-level issue, ever. But is it going to get people (voters!) to accept higher energy costs near-term (“making polluters pay” = us) to maybe help move the needle, when “emerging” nations are still moving hard in the wrong direction — http://www.salon.com/2014/01/27/china_still_married_to_coal_despite_alleged_fling_with_clean_tech_newscred/ ??
Given who controls the political power in this state and country (think $$$$$), wealth will be protected and the little guy and the middle class will pay, for very long-term benefits seen my many as dubious at best and non-existent at worst.
Somehow, I don’t think dumbing down the conversation to bumper-strip slogans is going to get us very far. And nowhere at all with Faux News watchers.
Nick Abraham
Anna, your communications series has been incredibly helpful. The flash card series covers everything from creating a broader “tent” for environmental issues, to getting buy in from hostel crowds.
I appreciate the simple powerful solutions you’ve emphasized and I’ll emphatically utilize it from here on out.
Anna Fahey
Thanks so much, Nick!
yvrlutyens
Some of these points might be valid, but “pollution” and “making polluters pay” are fudges. Carbon and CO2 are essential for life. Greenhouse gases are too much of a good thing, so calling them “pollution” will not accord with what most people think of as “pollution”. (Maybe “polluting” could work.) And skeptics are very alive to fudges, so I can’t help wondering if fudging could backfire. And as pointed out above, we are the polluters, so “making polluters pay” really means us.
Anna Fahey
I’m more concerned with boosting a sense of engagement and urgency among those who already grasp the science than changing minds of skeptics. I believe that policies that require polluters to pay can actually take the burden *off* individuals who want to do the right thing but feel constrained (guilty, complicit, helpless) by systems and infrastructure that give them little choice.
Dlanderos
You are all arguing to continue use scientifically precise language, but the research shows that we need to use language that emotionally resonates with people. The mistake we have made so far is to talk about climate change in only scientific terms. While accurate, we aren’t reaching the masses of people that we need to reach and to motivate them to action. In fact, we are losing ground. Fewer people believe that climate change exists, and even many who acknowledge it don’t think the change is attributable to human behavior. Fox news has been hugely persuasive in moving the American public to the political right and to thinking that climate change is a hoax, so if you think that using less scientific language with be insulting to people, I think the Fox example proves otherwise. People who argue against re-framing the language often say that it is dishonest. It is not. It is merely framing the message in a way that resonates with people so that they can relate to it and be moved emotionally by it. I have been an environmental and political activist since the first Earth Day. I’m discouraged to see that we have moved the needle very little if at all on getting public and political support on climate change. That should tell us something about the effectiveness of our messaging.
Jeremy Porter
Thanks Anna for sharing this and adapting for your audience. Great to see it out there and hopefully a few more people take up the language. It’s been well-received so far.
John — I agree that the language does partly depend on the context. For example, when speaking to a room of scientists the language needs to be more precise. But I think we can talk about pollution with skeptics quite well. It doesn’t need to be an argument about global warming or climate change if we all agree we want less pollution, better air, and less health problems.
Anna Fahey
Thanks so much, Jeremy. I LOVE the guide and look forward to more like it from you! It’s been well-received by our audiences.
Anna
Terry Brow
Let’s see if I got this. “Use feelings instead of science to make important decisions”.
Anna Fahey
Terry, unfortunately that’s how we make our decisions whether we like it or not. Our job is to help people feel what the science tells us!
Anna
Eric Ard
I don’t think this is the right take. This is some really standard, basic political science, in line with Lakoff’s prudent, classic,”Don’t Think of an Elephant”; Stay within your audience’s framework and language, then expound into shared concerns that highlight the issue-it’s tried an true. When fundamental frameworks are challenged our animal spirits default to active opposition. In other words, nobody hears our pretty vernacular but us. For example, from my conversation: The same person that accepts bunk climate denial science will agree that every place can end up with smog like L.A., and that if every place did have smog like L.A. they would be very unhappy.
Student
Nice. Now swap the columns so the “Yes” words come first (& come to mind better) and slap it on a T-shirt, upside down. 🙂
Does Jeremy (or Sightline) have a flashcard for explaining fee and dividend? (Or how would you approach solutions?)
Sara Robinson
What I love about this list is that tight focus on the word “pollution.” Jonathan Haidt has told us that conservatives, in particular, put a high value on purity. Extending that fear of contamination to their physical environment with words like “pollution” has proven effective in moving them in the deep past (I’m talking about the 1960s, when the whole country rallied around this word), and we need to get back to it.