We need to talk about climate communications
- New communications forum to help climate professionals get their message across
- Research shows US citizens’ concern for climate change is most influenced by the political divide
New developments in the climate communications field are providing deeper insights into how people absorb climate change messaging. How, for example, do you deal with the rather alarming news that most US citizens’ level of concern about climate change tracks politicians’ rhetoric on the subject?
With a new initiative, Talking Climate, a group of climate communicators hope to help climate professionals, scientists and policy makers understand public attitudes, and respond effectively.
While there’s a lot of information on climate communications out there, Talking Climate points out that it doesn’t often reach climate change practitioners. What’s more, researchers rarely have strategies for promoting their work outside the world of academia.
What’s been wrong so far?
Because climate change is a complex issue, there have been some less-than-adept efforts to describe the link between the realities of climate change and the science behind it. In the media in particular, reporting on killer heatwaves and lethal ice-ages has been pretty common. But as Talking Climate points out in one of several guides to effective communications, appeals to fear – unless accompanied by a positive message – rarely work to inform. Instead, they are likely to make people feel disempowered and less motivated.
Other guides tackle making climate science simple, climate change scepticism and encouraging sustainable behaviour. There is also a section on how to visually communicate climate change, reflecting research that suggests people tend to respond more positively to images that demonstrate solutions.
Practical help like this is will be invaluable in dealing with news that indicates Rick Santorum and his fellow Republican presidential candidates could be more influential on climate attitudes than we like to think. Recent research shows US citizens’ level of concern for climate change is largely influenced by political rhetoric, leaving us with the deeply depressing thought that:
“A mass communication effort to alter the salience of the climate change issue is unlikely to have much impact […]these efforts are dwarfed by the effect of the divide on environmental issues in the political elite.”
In a country where concern about climate change is consistently ranked at the bottom of public opinion polls, the authors found that the biggest influence on public opinion in the US is not the media, the weather or socio-economic factors; it is the voting behaviour and political rhetoric espoused by US politicians.
The authors aggregated poll responses on climate change concern from 2002 until 2010 to create a Climate Change Threat Index (CCTI). This measure shows the salience of climate change and how seriously the public perceives it. The higher the score, the higher the level of concern felt – as this graph shows:
Image - Screen Shot 2012-02-23 At 12.35.07 (note)
To explain the fluctuations, the authors looked at the influence of six categories which are generally invoked to explain of climactic concern: extreme weather events; exposure to and understanding of scientific information; mass media coverage; advocacy groups; (political) elite cues and economic and political factors.
The study suggests, for example, that weather events don’t significantly influence public concern over climate change. In contrast, the release of major scientific reports significantly raises the CCTI index. Likewise, mass media coverage and the influence of advocacy groups also boost public concern.
Significantly, political cues such as public statements either promoting or opposing climate change action swing public opinion either way, as do voting records for and against mitigation measures. So, the authors suggest:
“In an extremely partisan environment, Republican votes against environmental bills legitimate public opinion opposed to action on climate change. When the Republicans increase voting support for environmental bills, it reduces partisanship and increases public support for actions to address climate change.”
The researchers argue this has huge consequences for climate change communicators, because their results suggest that the partisan divide over climate change far outweighs other factors’ influence.
Unless communication strategies are linked to a broader political vision, the authors say, science-based communication on its own will not be enough to challenge the “vested economic interests” and “conflicts and questions of power” in the politics of climate change.
(Our editor Christian is a trustee of Public Interest Research Centre, one of the organisations behind Talking Climate.)