Scientist and Yale communications researcher Anthony Leiserowitz recently lamented that when it comes to climate change “You almost couldn’t design a problem that is a worse fit with our underlying psychology.”
Why? It’s hard for anybody to get worked up about a threat that feels abstract, far away in space and time, and too big for an individual to grapple with.
So what to do? We’ve often heard that the best communications strategies drive home how climate change impacts—as well as the benefits of smart energy solutions—are local, concrete, and personal. Well, what is more local, concrete, and personal than our own bodies and our families’ health?
Indeed, those who view climate change as being harmful to people are significantly more likely to support climate policy responses. And the fact is that climate change will harm people in every community in North America.
A recent research report and messaging guide, Conveying the Human Implications of Climate Change: A Climate Change Communication Primer for Public Health Professionals, shows that across audience segments, the health implications of climate change appear to be “both useful and compelling, particularly when mitigation-related actions were paired with specific benefits to health.” In other words, it’s important to emphasize that our health will benefit if we do take action—from cleaner air to breathe, healthier food to eat, and more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly communities.
It makes sense; health is a powerful shared value that is close to home and far more relevant to our day-to-day lives than polar bears (sorry, bears). Here’s our quick guide for using a public health frame to put a face on climate change:
