Renewable Energy · Strategy · XandY Insights

Polar bears, politics, and apocalypse

The three big problems in climate communication, and how to fix them. Climate change has been sold as distant, partisan, and hopeless. None of those framings are necessary, and all three are counterproductive.

Abel Gustafson & Matthew Goldberg · XandY Insights · October 2023 · 7 minute read

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, but we have been slow to address it. This inaction is not due to a lack of scientific knowledge or technological solutions. We have plenty of both. What we truly lack is sufficient motivation and priority among everyday people and their elected officials. The primary problems to solve are in communication and public opinion. In short, the front lines of this issue are the hearts and minds of everyday people.

But people and organizations are not naturally skilled at talking about climate change. Despite good efforts and good intentions, there are three common patterns of climate communication that are actually quite counterproductive.

Polar bears

In one study, a survey of Americans asked "what is the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the term 'global warming'?" The most common answers were things like "melting ice" and "polar bears." This makes sense, because polar bears, penguins, and melting sea ice are the standard imagery for climate change. But this reveals the roots of a significant problem.

Most people do not naturally care deeply about melting ice or polar bears. We humans evolved to prioritize immediate dangers that we can see and feel right now. Climate change is the exact opposite. It is often invisible, abstract, slow-moving, and seems distant in time and space. This is the perfect storm in the psychology of persuasion, creating huge challenges when trying to motivate people to pay attention, to care deeply, or to take action.

When we emphasize distant effects (polar bears, melting sea ice) or abstract phenomena (parts per million of atmospheric CO2), we create a large distance between the bad effects and the audience. We say, in essence, "this is a problem for polar bears." We fail to connect the issue to anything that is truly important to the average person.

Time magazine cover featuring a polar bear on melting ice
The standard imagery: distant, abstract, and about someone (or something) else.

Fortunately, there are clear solutions. Our analyses show it can be very effective to emphasize the ways that climate change is affecting everyday people, right here, right now. In one recent study, we show that when people hear personal stories of these climate effects, this creates a stronger understanding of the risks. The data show that a likely reason personal stories can be so effective is that they activate concern and compassion, and they bring the issue closer to home.

Politics

It's no secret that climate change is a politically polarized issue in the United States. But our recent research shows that people overestimate the actual degree of political polarization. That is, people think we are more divided than we actually are. This can lead people to avoid the issue altogether, and to think it is taboo or socially risky to express their own worries about it.

Part of the reason Americans assume there is a radical division on climate change is that the issue is commonly portrayed as a political battle. It is typical for news stories to focus on the political struggle between opposing groups. This causes people to think of the issue as mostly a matter of "us versus them." Focusing on politics, or even using politically charged buzzwords, causes people to put up their defenses against "the other team." This defuses any effort to work together.

Reframing the issue to align with shared values Our legacy Leave it better than you found it Pass along a good Earth to our children Safety and security Clean air, clean water Climate change destabilizes a delicate system Climate change threatens national security Morality Innocent people are being harmed Responsibility as stewards of the Earth It's wrong to contaminate our shared spaces XANDY · THREE NARRATIVE FRAMES THAT CROSS PARTY LINES
Figure 1. Three families of narratives that resonate across political groups: legacy, safety, and morality. Each gives an audience a reason to care that has nothing to do with which team they are on.

To combat this tribalism, we need narratives that focus on common goals and shared values. We can point to ethics we all learned as children, such as "leave it better than you found it." We can appeal to innate motives for tangible benefits like clean air and clean water. We can also frame the issue as being about protecting innocent people from harm. Our recent research has shown that one of the leading motives for protecting nature, shared by people across the world, is to maintain the balance of Earth's delicate system. Many people already have a mental image of nature as a Jenga tower. They know we should not tinker with the blocks. These universal narratives are key for reducing polarization and building commonality.

We find convincing evidence of the effectiveness of appealing to the values of the audience, such as in our research on a large-scale ad campaign designed to persuade Republicans about the reality and severity of climate change. The ads featured short video interviews with a Christian climate scientist, an Air Force general, and two Republican political figures. Each discussed how climate action aligns with their values, such as Christian teachings, national security, and conservative politics. After deploying these video ads on YouTube and Facebook in two target cities, we found that the campaign had a substantial positive effect on Republicans' climate opinions after just 30 days. We can have large effects in the real world when we find ways to resonate with the values of the target audience.

The Economist magazine cover on climate change
When the issue is framed as a political fight, the audience picks a side before it hears the argument.

Apocalypse

In 2021, researchers conducted a survey of youth (ages 16 to 25) in 10 diverse countries. They found that a majority felt "powerless" regarding climate change and only 31% felt "optimistic." When asked if "humanity is doomed," more than half (56%) said yes.

This prevalent feeling of doom and hopelessness is (you get the theme) an effect of how we have been portraying climate change. It is common to crank the fear up to 11 on the assumption that more fear will produce more persuasion and more action. We often see dark, apocalyptic portrayals of a scorched Earth, along with dramatic rhetoric about human extinction.

But all this fear can be counterproductive. When people feel too much fear, they try to relieve the discomfort by ignoring the problem, changing the channel, or finding reasons to discredit it. This is a "flight" response that occurs when people feel incapable of dealing with the danger.

Our research shows a proven strategy for overcoming this. It centers on supplementing the fear with a large dose of hope. Specifically, we need to include four key ingredients: threat severity (this problem is severe and will have very harmful effects), threat salience (this problem is relevant to you personally), self-efficacy (you are capable of taking action), and response efficacy (this solution is effective and can successfully reduce the threat).

Fear works only when it comes with a way out How audiences respond depending on how threatening the message feels and how capable they feel of acting Complacency "Nice that it's fixable, but it's not my problem." Danger control Motivated action. People face the threat and work to defeat it. Indifference No threat, no tools, no reason to engage. Fear control Flight: ignore it, change the channel, discredit the messenger. Low perceived threat High perceived threat Threat severity + threat salience: "this is bad, and it will affect you" High efficacy "I can act, and it works" Low efficacy "nothing I do matters" ADAPTED FROM THE EXTENDED PARALLEL PROCESS MODEL (WITTE, 1992) · XANDY
Figure 2. Threat alone pushes people into fear control: denial, avoidance, and discrediting the source. Threat paired with efficacy pushes them into danger control, which is where motivation and action live. The four ingredients above map onto the two axes.

When fear-based communication emphasizes threat (the danger is severe and relevant) and nothing else, people respond in counterproductive ways, such as burying their heads in the sand. But when we also provide clear information about efficacy (the ability to solve the problem), people become more motivated and willing to face the threat and take action to defeat it.

This makes sense. Who would take action when they have been convinced it is pointless? People need to feel empowered and hopeful. In addition to emphasizing the danger, we also need to present solutions that are doable and effective.

Summary

Climate communication has good intentions but bad habits. Repeatedly, it has focused on imagery that portrays the problem as far away and irrelevant to our lives; reinforced the "us vs. them" mentality, making it feel toxic to even talk about the issue; and preached the fire and brimstone of an apocalyptic future with no way out.

Many Americans feel climate change is either far away and irrelevant, too controversial to get involved in, or a lost cause. All three perceptions were created by communication patterns, and they can be changed the same way.

But we can fix this. When we change our narratives, we reshape the way people respond. The strategies above can be used by individuals in everyday conversations and by organizations in large-scale campaigns. This requires strategy, care, and effort. We believe it's worth it.

Cite this. Gustafson, A. & Goldberg, M. H. (2023). Polar bears, politics, and apocalypse: 3 big problems in climate change communication and how to fix them. XandY Analytics. Retrieved from xandyanalytics.com/3-problems-in-climate-communication

Image credits. Magazine covers are reproduced from the original XandY post for commentary. Figure 2 adapts the Extended Parallel Process Model (Witte, 1992).

More renewable energy research Follow us on X