Notes #3/2024: Its future generations, stupid. Messaging climate change.
Notes are just that: Short, informal messages, or brief records of points or ideas written down. The views and opinions expressed in my notes do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of my employer or clients.
Climate change is happening; it is anthropogenic; it is a problem; we can fix it. To fix it, we need transformations of systems—whether it be our economic system, political system, information system, energy system, or our food system. To fix we need behavioral change—making different, more sustainable choices. Building policy support for systemic transformation and influencing individual decisions necessitate effective messaging. While research indicates overall support for increased government action, translating this into specific initiatives faces challenges, leaving room for potential backlash and backsliding. The key to success lies in the right framing and messaging.
Fear versus innovation
Throughout most of my career, I have been immersed in environments dominated by an 'apocalyptic framing' of climate change, emphasizing planetary boundaries, tipping points, and species extinction, often coupled with a 'blame frame.' However, driven by conviction and a deliberate personal stance (also to profile myself, or just to be recalcitrant), I have advocated for an 'innovation framing,' highlighting opportunities, ingenuity, and technology.
It appears to me that these framings also align with different political ideologies. Notably, the fear-based framing employed by the natural science community has, at times, led to authoritarian governance suggestions (e.g. planetary ecologist). I plan to delve deeper into this ideology aspect in a later issue of my notes. Here, I will focus on a recent study that suggests a entirely different framing is most effective in mobilizing climate action: future generations.
Future generations as frame is transcending cultural and contextual disparities
That at least is the main finding of an interesting new study ‘Later is too late’ by the marketing firm Potential Energy. They tested multiple framings of 18 different policies with nearly 60,000 people across 23 countries to answer the questions if the world wants action on climate, and how to motivate the public to accelerate progress.
Global consensus on the imperative for climate action is robust, with a resounding 77% agreement that governments must take resolute actions to curb the impact of climate change. However, the nuanced nature of individual policy preferences underscores the significance of comprehending and addressing the underlying motivations. Framing and articulation of messages play a pivotal role in bolstering public endorsement for climate policies. The preeminent narrative identified as most efficacious is the urgent generational message. This narrative, emphasizing the necessity of tackling climate change for the sake of future generations, outperforms alternative messages centered on economic prospects, societal equity, health enhancement, and preempting extreme weather events. Messages centered around the responsibility for future generations are 12 times more effective than those focusing on job creation.
Messages advocating bans or phaseouts demonstrate diminished support compared to those championing technological upgrades, setting standards, making solutions accessible, and diminishing dependency. Moreover, the study underscores that support for climate policies exhibits notable discrepancies across countries. While a broad global consensus exists particulars of policy preferences diverge based on cultural, economic, and political contexts. The future generations framing however resonates universally across diverse demographic strata, spanning age, education level, income, political affiliation, and family status and could serve as a unifying message transcending cultural and contextual disparities.
These are interesting insights for me as a strategy consultant en choreographer of sustainability. They also could explain why the prevalent definition of sustainability as formulated in the 1987 Brundtland report is resonating so well and so enduring:
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
Speech is silver, silence is golden
Introducing yet another trend in climate communication: the art of not communicating, or 'greenhushing.' Stricter regulations aimed at tackling greenwashing have inadvertently birthed this phenomenon. According to a report from South Pole (from 2022 already but overlooked by me then), a staggering 70% of sustainability-focused companies are now intentionally concealing their climate goals.
Interestingly, the greenest companies are leading this covert mission. In Europe, particularly in France, where laws against greenwashing are strict, companies are maintaining radio silence about their climate aspirations. Actually, just this week the European Parliament has given its final green light to a directive that will improve product labelling and ban the use of misleading environmental claims.
This strategic silence, however, comes at a cost. The reluctance to openly discuss climate goals not only dampens competition but also throws a cloak over the sharing of best practices. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, I suppose I'd rather have a bit of greenhushing than be tangled in the web of greenwashing. This sentiment extends even to my own field of work on climate and energy transition in the public sector – (yes, municipality of Amsterdam, I'm giving you the side-eye).
In other news: Call for expressions of interest in ISC global science-policy work
The International Science Council will constitute a roster of experts over the coming weeks pertaining to 20 key areas that are prominent on the UN agenda to be able to provide timely inputs that draw on a wide range of expertise across regions. A good initiative.