Messaging Solutions

'Messaging' is the field of public relations, communications and political persuasion that permeates our highly connected societies via conventional media and social media. The language used in tweets, public announcements and media articles can have a bearing on how well climate teachings, climate campaigns and climate protests are received.

See related topics of Activists Solutions and Political Solutions.

Some Soft Science Approaches

Changing your mind (or someone else’s) is a complex process. But understanding how your brain works can help.

How psychology can help you change someone’s mind - Fast Company - June 22

Climate change communication

How social sciences can help accelerate the climate movement - GreenBiz - June 22

As put by Sir David Attenborough in his inaugural Instagram post in 2020, "saving the planet is now a communications challenge." According to the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, climate change communication is about "educating, informing, warning, persuading and mobilizing people" around climate action while taking into consideration their varying "experiences, mental and cultural models, and underlying values and world views." Climate change communication research can, therefore, be extremely helpful to professionals that need to communicate complex climate messages. Messaging can range from a real estate manager looking to garner internal support to install solar panels in all corporate locations to a marketing executive hoping to excite Texas-based consumers with a new plant-based steak launch. Climate communication literature can offer insights on how to effectively frame such climate messages, select appropriate messengers and approach different audiences.

Resources: Climate Outreach, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and Potential Energy Coalition.

Framing the Discussion

With the explosion of material online and in social media, linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff points out that framing the conversation properly is always important see:

“Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate” – George Lakoff, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2014

George Lakoff has retired as Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. He is now Director of the Center for Neural Mind & Society at UC Berkeley.

The New York Times offers suggestions for reaching climate change skeptics via such tactics as an appeal to common values:

“So You Want to Convince a Climate Change Skeptic”

Excuses

To help with discussions VOX writers found 12 common defeatist excuses for doing nothing.

1. Isn’t it alarmist to talk about the potential extinction of the human species?
2. Isn’t it already too late to prevent catastrophe?
3. How do I deal with the fact that this is so depressing?
4. Won’t it be impossible to get off fossil fuels? Emissions keep going up, and oil companies are too powerful.
5. But I’m just one person. Do my choices even matter in a world of 7 billion people?
6. Why should I deprive myself of meat and air travel? It’s human nature to pursue short-term pleasure.
7. Isn’t it mainly a rich and powerful people’s problem? I’m not rich.
8. What is the one easy thing I can do?
9. It’s obvious the US needs to pass serious federal climate legislation, but isn’t our political system broken? Leaders have short-term attention spans. And many are beholden to fossil fuel interests.
10. But won’t decarbonization cost too much? Won’t it hurt the global economy?
11. Aren’t you making what economists call “zero sum” mistakes (my consumption doesn’t limit yours, we can both gain in “win-win” trade)?
12. Surely the techies will invent something that saves us?

See the original article:

12 excuses for climate inaction and how to refute them - Vox - Eliza Barclay and Jag Bhalla - September 20, 2019

The Conversation as some additional advice from Dr. William Lamb, one of the authors of the Cardiff paper reported in:

Climate University denial hasn’t gone away – here’s how to spot arguments for delaying climate action - Stuart Capstick, Research Fellow in Psychology, Cardiff University - July 30, 2020

The Audience: ‘Opinions’ Differ

According to the IPCC, the biggest impediment to predicting what will happen with global warming is how people will respond. Political will is largely absent but there are signs as of 2019 that this is changing. Moving the ‘Neutrals’ below is expected to be a key factor in any campaign.

Several types of responses seem common when raising concerns about the climate crisis:

Response	Philosophy	Working For or Against
Right, I agree, what can I do?	concerned supporters	For
It’s a matter of national security, we need to have a plan.	patriots	For
Oh, no not again I’m so tired of hearing about climate change, I don’t want to think about it.	apathetics	Neutral
It’s fine the techies will find a solution and all will be well.	optimists	Neutral
I agree but it’s too late, there’s nothing we can do, let me go.	fatalists	Neutral
It’s even worse we’re all going to die.	extinctionists	Neutral
I agree but it’s all part of God’s plan, relax.	evangelicals	Neutral
It’s all bunk, it’s all natural variation.	anti-science deniers	Against
It’s a dark conspiracy by liberals trying to impose a socialist agenda.	right wing fanatics	Against
Doing anything when it’s probably not a problem anyway is going to destroy the economy and jobs – don’t even think about the GND, we can’t afford it.	Fossil fuel industry and their beneficiaries, wealthy conservatives	Against

An analysis of these types would allow us to construct targeting messaging. Areas of analysis might include by Rep, Dem, Ind, etc,; by Members of Congress; by demographics, etc. etc.; by State.