Communication for Climate Change Progress
Image courtesy of NASA
Climate change communication from leaders and public conversations are an interesting study. What drives or impedes emotions, conclusions, talks, action and progress is both simple and complex.
One company has researched it, analyzed the findings and is providing interesting, helpful insights.
“Research from our latest report,” says Michael Urquhart, principal at media intelligence solutions provider UNICEPTA, “suggests that members of the public are still very much engaged with and care about climate change.”
But there’s a catch, he adds “However, it seems that they are currently disenchanted with policymakers’ ability and willingness to turn pledges into action,” Urquhart points out. “Historically, there have been frequent missed opportunities for international cooperation to mobilize a meaningful response to climate change.”
The consequence has been serious.
“This has left citizens — many of whom recognize the urgency of the situation — without hope for the future,” he says.
The communication between the public and government is important to observe and dissect.
“Past UNICEPTA research has revealed that the language used by citizens to discuss climate change online tends to be highly pessimistic. This is in stark contrast to politicians, who, for obvious reasons, are typically quicker to celebrate achievements and more hopeful in their message framing,” Urquhart says.
That’s a problem.
“This perception gap between citizens and their representatives breeds a level of mistrust for policy-makers, which is further exacerbated during moments of high exposure,” he adds.
Michael Urquhart, principle at UNICEPTA
The money is a conflict too.
“The research also found that government interventions, such as the Inflation Reduction Act in the USA, can be adversely perceived by some citizens,” Urquhart says, because “Concerns are often focused on how the measures will negatively impact national and individual finances.”
He elaborates on the thinking and communication around it.
“This is not just an issue in the US. In the UK, ‘a high price point’ is one of the most commonly cited reasons to avoid eco-friendly solutions,” Urquhart says. “Whether this is heat pumps as an alternative to traditional boilers or electric vehicles as opposed to internal combustion engines, finances unsurprisingly play a key role in their decision-making.”
There is tension around this thinking.
“In the context of a cost-of-living crisis, there’s a growing sense of conflicting values between environmental wellbeing and economic stability, a line that climate communicators need to tread carefully,” Urquhart admits.
Public conversations can ebb and flow around the topic of climate change after a adverse weather event.
“The media experts found that, after a key calendar event, social media conversations are not sustained for longer than around two to three days, regardless of the level of anticipation prior to the event,” UNICEPTA discovered.
“On average, social media conversation drops by 43 percentage points (pp) within the first 24 hours, 72 pp on day two, 76 pp on day three and 82pp by the end of day four,” the report found.
That rapid and steep decrease of attention and interest communicates something important. Yet there is first something else to consider.
“There were outliers to this finding, which saw sustained levels of attention for a longer period. These events shared a common denominator: either they celebrated tangible steps taken to drive climate action or they exposed instances where policymakers were perceived as being not up to the task,” according to the report.
Could that outlier information reveal the clue and solution to keeping public interest and engagement about climate change high at all times?
Image by Markus Spiske, on Unsplash
“At a high level, the research has demonstrated that leaders and policymakers need to rebuild trust with their citizens,” Urquhart says. “However, to successfully sustain engagement, they must act upon their climate commitments, and not simply put pen to paper.”
He speaks to what can prove as a catalyst for improvement.
“Our research indicated some methods as to how climate communicators can keep public interest,” Urquhart says.
“Communicators need to focus on reinforcing messaging following the three-day post-event mark, where we often see a dramatic drop in popular attention.
“Injecting new material, sharing the latest update or recapping on notable milestones and achievements are all good ways of reinvigorating the conversation and these tactics should be repeated at strategic intervals for greater effect,” he advises.
What best communicates are more definitive, committed approaches.
“Citizens appear most engaged with the discussion of concrete pathways and solutions,” Urquhart says. “They want to see more than just a commitment to meaningful change.”
What that means is, “Highlighting an action plan with real world consequences will keep people engaged for longer periods of time,” he says.
It’s additionally wise to consider what is being communicated to keep the conversation moving forward.
“The research indicated that narratives on mitigation and adaptation measures appear to fuel debates around citizens’ perceptions of adequate solutions,” Urquhart says. “By initiating these discussions, communicators can expect to maintain public attention and reach new audiences through the resulting dialogue.”
The informative literature around climate change is an issue as well.
“While citizens have an appetite for engaging with scientific research, they seem to be less aware of this material. It’s often less accessible to the average reader and rather circulates in a filter bubble,” Urquhart says.
He has advisory for that challenge.
“Prioritizing engagement through livestreamed press conferences, expert Q&As or by sharing relevant human stories, can help to boost visibility and maintain attention.”
