Climate messaging survey: we have a problem

Some initial top-line findings from the Climate Messaging Survey

Hello,

Thank you for filling out my climate messaging survey. More than 2,000 people did so and it's providing some very valuable insights. I'm still crunching the data but here are some worrying initial points.

The first is that the vast majority of respondents are reporting an increase in the number of messages trying to undermine action on climate change.

That's bad news. I'm just back from the Global Tipping Points conference and its statement says: "The window for preventing … cascading climate dynamics is rapidly closing, demanding immediate, unprecedented action from policymakers worldwide". The plain English for "cascading climate dynamics" is a minefield of feedback loops each of which will make our world less habitable for us. And every single mine could set off other, bigger, scarier mines. And did I mention we're riding an oil-fuelled pogostick? 

But at the time when we need to be pressing for real, radical action, it looks like we are being bombarded with messages opposing just that. Worryingly, this survey was a self-selecting group of people who are largely convinced on the need for urgent action. If such messaging is reaching them, what about the undecided? What is being whispered in their ears?

Here's what respondents said when they were asked where these messages were coming from:

Perhaps there are few surprises here but note the power of the media and social media. My view is that we're very much losing the fight in those key areas. If you doubt my words, consider that we have been demanding action on climate change for decades, yet we're about to break 1.5C of warming and yet are hearing messages that we can't do anything about it: “too expensive”, "more growth", "drill, baby, drill", etc. 

Climate scientists worked on the basis that if they soberly reported the facts then decision-makers would act rationally. This was a not-unreasonable approach but we need to think differently now. Presenting the problem as 1.5 or 2 or 4 degrees of warming does not convey to non-experts the existential nature of the crisis. In fact, it makes it sound kinda small and cosy. Also, the solution people are being offered is well, a big fat nothing: Net Zero. That's not gonna fly. We need better explanations of the problem and the solutions.

Here's a wordcloud of what respondents thought were the strongest arguments against action on climate change. (This does not mean they agreed with them, by the way.) 

I'm still crunching all the responses in detail but this wordcloud has clear shades of "the economy, stupid". Also, here are a few comments respondents gave when the survey asked for a taste of what messages people had seen:

  • Messages like "it's too expensive", "it doesn't work", "caring about the environment is woke", etc. are more likely to land if the people hearing them don't want to make a change that will 

  • We have to keep growing

  • Global warming is not due to humanity’s own actions

  • Lefty wokerati eco zealots want us to change our lives

That last comment encapsulates a key problem. Somehow, hard science has become a culture war issue where people respond to specific words and phrasings with preprogrammed responses, like a Kabuki theatre of the damned. 

To circumvent that we need new ways of talking about climate change and its solutions. I'm an expert in digital campaigning and this is going to be the focus of my upcoming work in this area, based on deeper analysis of that survey and on asking your views on other aspects of messaging. 

It's not too late to make real change happen but it's getting close so we need to up our game if we're going to take people with us and force decision-makers to make the changes they should have made decades ago.

Watch this space - and thank you for reading.