32 POLICY & SCIENCE

Getting the message right

How can climate communicators drive the behavioural changes that are needed if the planet is to avoid climate-related catastrophe?

By Chris Rose, Director, Campaign Strategy Ltd it fell to the meteorologists. Do an internet search for ‘Inter-governmental Panel on ommunications expert Frank Luntz Climate Change’ (IPCC) and ‘World wrote a book in 2007 called Words Meteorological Organization’ (WMO) and CThat Work. Luntz popularised the use you find this explanation: of those widgets you see on TV where a live “In 1988, through a UN General audience turns a dial to say whether they like Assembly resolution entitled ‘Protection what a politician is saying or not. Political of global climate for present and future tacticians then use the audience’s response generations of mankind’, WMO and the to fine tune political messages. It’s at once UN Environmental Programme established both the crudest and most sophisticated sort the IPCC with the goals to: of communications design. And it generates O Assess available scientific information on the type of key insights that the scientists climate change in charge of climate communications have O Assess the environmental and socio- failed to adopt. economic impacts of climate change Luntz has become rich by advising lots of O Formulate response strategies”1 Fortune Top 500 companies. Who has been more successful at getting what they want in No mention of communication. Nor communications. It’s not for want of advice. recent decades: the climate community or does it seem that they anticipated what Thousands of blogs, articles and studies big business? would be required to achieve this intensely have shown why macro and micro-scale Scientists can be forgiven for apparently political task. communications intended to do something ignoring the insights of modern effective about climate could be better. communications research, even knowledge Communications science? For instance, do climate scientists talk that was already old when climate change I doubt that they teach much about about the fate of their children when they sprang onto the global political scene in cognitive psychology, advertising, marketing speak of the fate of the planet? Probably the late 1970s. Professional advocates and or politics at weather school. Things not. Do they seem worried or professionally campaigners have less excuse. But, largely like heuristics, framing and values. Not detached? In general they lack congruence: by accident, it was scientists who got put in surprisingly, the climatologists have proved they announce Armageddon but are not pole position. fabulously ill-equipped to deliver effective even packing their bags. Of all the people to be gifted with the climate communications. Unfortunately, the Luntz’s subtitle was It’s Not What You poisoned chalice of informing the global UN system has not moved on from the need Say, It’s What People Hear. He was right of population that humanity had finally over- to establish the science (which it did fairly course. If a scientist refers three times to stretched the ability of the planet to cope well) to the need to create the reaction. uncertainties, people conclude that she or with our activities – that our destruction of Would you ask the likes of Frank Luntz to he is uncertain. Would you act on uncertain forests, our pollution of oceans and, above create a climate model, let alone tomorrow’s advice? Well, no. When a research scientist all, our burning of coal, oil and gas meant local weather forecast? Of course not. Yet is asked what needs to happen next, and she that mass extinctions, droughts, storms, climate scientists seem to think they can or he says ‘more research’, do you conclude floods, death and disaster were on the way – ignore even the most basic rules of public it’s time for action? Well, no.

CLIMATE 2020 POLICY & SCIENCE 33 © Spencer Platt/Getty Images Platt/Getty © Spencer

This, fundamentally, is why so much Change (UNFCCC), institutionalised Activists protest against the influence of billionaire and Republican financier David Koch, whose company, communications effort intended to spur a frame of action waiting for scientific Koch Industries Inc., has provided strong financial action has not been as effective as it could uncertainty to be resolved. As scientific support to climate sceptic groups and lobbied congress have been (and disastrously so). Most knowledge is always provisional, this was a against climate action. The sceptic lobby has had a far more professional approach to communications climate communications have not been recipe for procrastination, unintentionally evidence-based: they have been amateurish. underpinned by ‘good practice’ in science Luntz is notorious among climate and in the media. Scientists are trained not conducted between 2011 and 2015 in 15 campaigners for his 2003 memo to the to make definitive claims. The BBC was so countries including China, the US, the climate-sceptic US Bush administration: devoted to the principle of balance that until Philippines, Brazil and Russia shows that “Voters believe that there is no consensus 2014 it had a policy of presenting climate this is no longer a real issue, even if it still about global warming within the scientific change as an undecided, open scientific preoccupies the media in countries like the community. Should the public come to question in which there were two sides. US and UK. believe that the scientific issues are settled, The fossil fuel industry exploited this In these surveys, people responded to their views about global warming will framing by funding climate sceptics to feed the statement ‘Climate change – I don’t change accordingly. Therefore, you need the instincts of institutions like the BBC. believe in it’ with a one-to-five scale from to continue to make the lack of scientific They did not need to win any arguments, ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. In all certainty a primary issue in the debate.”2 merely to extend the uncertainty. 15 countries, climate believers outnumbered This strategy proved devilishly effective. One legacy is the fixation of pollsters, sceptics, and in no country did ‘strong The UN system, in which the IPCC fed media and politicians with whether or scepticism’ (strongly agreeing) reach more scientific advice to the politicians in the not the public believes in climate change. than 16 per cent. In eight countries, people UN Framework Convention on Climate Recent analysis of representative surveys were also asked if they had noticed the

CLIMATE 2020 34 POLICY & SCIENCE

National attitudes to climate change: ‘I don’t believe in it’

90

80

70

60

50 % disagree 40 agree neither 30

20

10

0 US UK SAF India Brazil Japan China Kenya Russia Turkey Thailand Australia Indonesia Argentina Philippines © Chris Rose/Greenpeace

The blue bars represent ‘believers’, orange the It was segmented by motivational values, fuels (where is the summit on that?), ‘sceptics’. In all 15 countries surveyed belief in climate change far outweighed scepticism classifying responders as settlers (security for negotiating away carbon stockpiles driven), prospectors (esteem driven) and (resources and reserves) or stimulating pioneers (inner directed). major technologies (like electric cars or climate changing. In each case a majority These groups were then subdivided carbon capture and storage). Leaving these said yes. into 12 ‘values modes’. These real but to civil society and the markets alone is Such questions are not answered invisible groups have three different sets of overly optimistic. analytically but intuitively (distinguished by unconscious values and three versions of At a human level, climate-relevant Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel what is really true (and, therefore, common communications needs to be thoroughly Kahneman as System 2 – hard, analytical – sense). In all 15 countries, just two values professionalised – to reach the level of, and System 1 – easy, reflexive, unconscious). modes lead the climate believers and those say, the cosmetics industry. Have you seen This explains how many of those who said ready to act, while another two with opposed adverts in which 97 per cent from a sample they had noticed the climate changing also values are champions of scepticism and of 86 women say this hair or skin product said they did not believe in climate change. reluctant to act. works? Why do we need such scant analysis The same surveys asked about increasing In short, opinion about climate change to support such choices? Because we want to renewable energy as the main source of is not driven by the facts and analysis that believe. Nobody wants to believe in climate electricity. In all eight countries where scientists are (rightly) trained to deal in but catastrophe but many want to believe in the questions were asked, a majority agreed (in by deep human needs for safety, belonging solutions. most cases by over 70 per cent). and identity (settlers), for esteem of others Climate communicators need to forget So why are so many pollsters, the media and self-esteem (prospectors), or for ethics, about explaining climate change (people and even campaigners still focused on the holism, universalism and self-direction already agree) and instead use professionals belief question, even though sustaining that (pioneers). Where offers or propositions to drive behavioural change that delivers frame only helps their opponents? Perhaps match people’s underlying values, people real-world results, such as conversion to because one of the last global hold-outs of support them. Where they don’t, people electric cars. Climate scientists are not the climate scepticism is in the small goldfish ignore or reject them. Communicators need people to do this. Nor are politicians, but pond of the US Congress. Recent surveys to take account of this reality. they can provide the context, incentives show most Republican congresspeople and and resources. activists are still climate change sceptics, Where do we go from here? It’s time for a psychological makeover of even though their voters are not. This does At a macro-political level the global climate the UN’s climate communications. not represent America, let alone the rest of system needs to remedy omissions. It the world. It’s not the problem. has covered off climate science but has 1 See: www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/ international_ipcc.php The 15-country survey series, conducted no international mechanisms for key 2 See: www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/ for Greenpeace, also shows something else. requirements like disinvestment in fossil mar/04/usnews.climatechange

CLIMATE 2020