We’ve known about the causes and effects of climate change for decades, so why aren’t we acting on it? Lee Constable finds the best ways to win hearts and cause real change.
As a climate communicator I am often asked by frustrated climate-concerned members of the public: “How do we get them to just listen to the science?” The “them” in question varies from political leaders and corporations to family members and even complete strangers on the internet. The science in question is climate science.
Have we failed?
Libby Lester is Professor (Research) and Director of the Monash Climate Change Communications Hub.
“I was at a party recently and someone asked what I do. I said I work in climate communications. And they said, ‘how’s that going for you?’ What could I say? ‘Not well, we’ve failed,’” Lester told them.
Lester started communicating about climate change in the 1980s, first as a journalist, including as environmental reporter for the Sunday Age before moving into academia where she has spent the past 25 years focused on environmental and climate communication.
“There’s been a massive change in awareness and understanding of climate change,” Lester says, but adds “that hasn’t led to the type or level of meaningful action we need.”
Where are we now?
Dr Rebecca Huntley is a social researcher and author of How to Talk About Climate Change in a Way That Makes a Difference, a work that explores the importance of feelings over facts (or at least in conjunction with them) for having impactful climate conversations.
Huntley and her colleagues have been tracking Australia’s attitudes and action relating to climate change, publishing The Sunrise Project’s Climate Compass.
Their data points to Australians falling into one of seven groups that reflect their attitudes and beliefs relating to climate change ranging from ‘Alarmed’ (the most concerned) to ‘Dismissive’ (climate deniers who may not just lack concern about climate change but be actively trying to prevent and delay climate action).
While over a quarter of us (26%) fall into the ‘Alarmed’ category, understanding that the climate crisis is both human-caused and impacting us now, it’s important to note how many people sit somewhere in the middle between ‘Alarm’ and ‘Denial’.
‘Concerned’ and ‘Cautious’ people made up a combined 40% of Australians in this survey, with both categories far outweighing the 10% who are outright climate deniers.
The Climate Compass
Climate Compass divides Australians into one of seven groups based on their climate change attitudes and beliefs. Credit: The Sunrise Project
Alarmed
At 26% of the Australian population, the alarmed have the highest levels of concern about climate change. They believe humans are fully responsible for climate change and believe that climate change impacts will affect current and future generations.
Alert
With 5% of the Australian population, the alert are highly concerned about climate change but think that other issues are more important. They also struggle to believe that any action they take will have an impact and some even believe that it is too late to take action on climate change at all.
Concerned
Comprising 23% of the Australian population, the concerned have slightly lower levels of worry about climate change but still see it as an important issue. They agree with the science of climate change but think it will be more of a problem for future generations so they have less urgency for action.
Cautious
At 17% of Australian population, the cautious express some worry about climate change but overall feel it’s an issue for the future and that other things are more important right now. Some of them don’t fully believe that humans are responsible for climate change and they are concerned about the risks of phasing out fossil fuels.
Disengaged
Representing 5% of the Australian population, the disengaged are not engaged in climate change or any political issues. They are uncertain on the science of climate change and think if it is real that it is a problem for future generations and won’t affect them.
Doubtful
Making up 15% of the Australian population, the doubtful are not convinced on the science of climate change and don’t believe that humans are the cause so they don’t agree that it will affect them or future generations or see any need for urgent action. They believe that moving away from fossil fuels will damage the economy or have other negative impacts.
Dismissive
And at 10% of the Australian population, the dismissive are climate deniers, they either don’t believe climate change is happening at all or think it is a natural process not influenced by humans. They may be actively taking action to try and delay or stop action on climate change.
The climate is changing and so are our attitudes
The Climate Compass report demonstrates a change in attitude from 2020 to 2022 in several areas with another report due to be released in 2026.
In the most recent study, the majority of Australians identified as feeling more concerned about the climate than they were just two years before with weather, floods and bushfires cited as the top three causes for increased concern.
Extreme events like flood and fire may have a galvanising effect, however that isn’t the case for everyone.
Hardcore climate denialists are a problem, especially those with a large platform, but as Huntley says, “they’re really only a small percentage of Australia – the larger problem is that within all of us is a level of denial”.
“Even people who are science literate and even people who say that they trust the CSIRO and want to hear from experts experience this level of denial or minima. At the core of it is the need to be innocent,” Huntley explains.
This need for innocence drives some people further from reckoning with the climate reality as they want to believe this isn’t something they could have seen coming, acted on earlier and could have done anything to prevent.
“And that happens in the face of the combination of truth and powerlessness. And all the science education in the world can’t combat this kind of deep psychological social response to devastating effects.”
Who should we be talking to?
A common refrain of communications is “know your audience”. Communicators are encouraged to familiarise themselves with the demographic details, media-consumption behaviours, daily habits and political views of their target audience in order to better craft their communications strategy and messages.
When it comes to climate change, the societal impacts are ubiquitous. The potential audiences for climate communication are many and varied. It can be hard to know where to start.
Another common concern of climate communicators is that they not spend their time and energy “preaching to the converted” – in this case, the ‘Alarmed’. Rather than focusing on shifting the perspectives of the ‘Disengaged’ and ‘Doubtful’, experts like Huntley encourage climate communicators to consider engaging with audiences in the middle ground who may be more open to shifting their attitudes (and even their actions) toward higher levels of concern.
Preaching to the choir isn’t all bad
Climate protests are important platforms for community movements to gain media attention and apply political pressure around the issues of climate crisis, but Dr Hannah Feldman, from the Australian National University, suggests an added function for participants. The School of Cybernetics and Institute for Water Futures researcher has investigated how teenagers engage with climate change including through ‘School Strike 4 Climate’.
“Does climate protest help? Well, yeah, on an individual level, it does. It really does empower individuals,” Feldman states.
This is just one way that we can see how connecting with fellow climate-concerned community members (whether at community events or in protest) to share knowledge can be powerful, even if it just provides a sense of belonging and support for the psychologically and emotionally taxing work that is climate advocacy.
Climate protest can also function as an important forum for climate communications even amongst the converted.
“In the work that I was doing with teenagers, one of the things that came up over and over again is that as a community they use School Strike as an opportunity to learn,” Feldman says.
“And people will bring along friends who aren’t that interested or don’t really know what’s going on and will use it as a moment to do some of that communication. To learn about an issue, and to learn about politics as well because it is highly politicised.”
Who should do the talking?
An important question climate communicators need to ask is: “Am I the right person to communicate this?”
The often deplorable treatment that experts suffered during the pandemic may suggest that scientists are a poor candidate as climate spokespeople today. However, recent research published in Nature Human Behaviour finds public trust in scientists is robust in most of the 68 countries surveyed. Of course, climate scientists aren’t the only possible messenger.
Relatability and personal story are common factors in determining who is listened to on the topic of climate crisis. At a recent Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action event, one survivor noted that, while she had always cared about and been outspoken about the need for climate action, it wasn’t until she experienced the first-hand threat and tragedy of losing her home in the Black Summer bushfires that media and other opportunities to speak exploded.
One group of climate messengers with a uniquely strong voice are children. “It’s really hard to argue with the safety of kids. It’s like a powerful rhetorical device,” Feldman says. No one’s going to be like ‘who cares about the kids’”
Just as any messenger will have strengths and weaknesses (perceived or otherwise) when it comes to communicating with a chosen audience, child climate communicators face challenge too.
“What we see with youth protests is that people refute them in different ways,” says Feldman, noting that the authority and knowledge of children who communicate about climate is often called into question.
Sydney students attend the School Strike for Climate in 2023. Credit: Jenny Evans / Getty Images
What are we aiming for?
Huntley talks at an event organised by Surfers for Climate. Credit: Supplied by Rebecca Huntley
A common issue of science and climate communications is that communicators identify the audience they want to communicate with (the who) and the topic (the what) but neglect to ask themselves arguably the most crucial question – why?
What would successful climate communication look like? And what would the world look like for Professor Libby Lester to proudly proclaim “We’ve succeeded!” when someone asks her about the field of climate communications?
While climate action calls for climate mitigation (for example lowering greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (for example extreme weather preparedness and response measures that allow us to survive through climate change already in motion), climate justice puts equity and human rights at the centre of the climate conversation.
The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals were created with the implicit understanding that climate change (and indeed all aspects of environmental sustainability) is a human rights issue and its impacts are not felt equally across society on a local or global scale.
The Paris Agreement adopted at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) focuses not only on climate mitigation to limit global warming but also includes provisions for climate justice by providing a framework for increasing the financial, technical and capacity building support for developing countries. This recognises that developing countries shoulder the highest burden and vulnerability when it comes to climate risks and the challenges of energy transition while being responsible for a much smaller proportion of the emissions responsible for the climate crisis compared to developed countries. With this in mind we are seeing climate communicators and communications researchers focus their efforts toward the overarching goal of climate justice.
Just transition requires two-way communication
Around 750 workers lost their jobs when Hazelwood power station closed. A just approach means supporting those impacted by climate action as well as climate change. Credit: Scott Barbour/Getty Images
One of the most frustrating things in science communication is that telling people facts doesn’t necessarily lead to a change in their beliefs or behaviours to align with those facts.
The most impactful climate communication need not focus on the science itself, instead communicating about the social or political elements of the climate crisis. And using a climate justice lens can help identify key elements to make your message resonate with your audience.
In farming communities the conversation around just transition explores the impacts of climate change most felt by farmers compared to others. Farmers are unequally impacted by climate change events like flood, fire and drought. A just transition ensures the path to net zero and beyond doesn’t disproportionately burden independent ‘ma and pa’ farms, allowing farming operations of all scales to transition and adapt to climate crisis.
But if you want to engage a community in a climate discussion, there’s one thing that’s non-negotiable – listening.
Lester’s research on social licence and the energy transition explores this in Australia and across Asia in industries including forestry, dairy, fish farming, mining and energy. Many communities are facing significant changes both from climate change adaptation and the transition to clean energy. Facilitating that transition means talking with community members as the local industry and economy changes, but it also means communicating their experiences and concerns to politicians and policymakers.
Listening and patience is particularly important for engaging with Indigenous communities. Caring for Country has been central to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures for millennia while colonisation has gone hand-in-hand with environmental degradation and oppression of Indigenous peoples.
The transition away from fossil fuels is an opportunity to create a world that is not just more sustainable in an environmental sense but in a social sense too, where the benefits and opportunities of the transition are shared equitably rather than at the cost of former coal mining communities, First Nations people and the most vulnerable in our society. This is an opportunity recognised by organisations such as the First Nations Clean Energy Network that aims to “ensure First Nations people play a central role and harness the opportunities from Australia’s renewables boom”.
No silver bullets but plenty of tools
Knowing your goals and listening to your audience are keys to success. However, Lester cautions that “ultimately, there is no silver bullet – reaching people requires strategy, flexibility and a lot of persistence”.
Lee Constable is a science communicator, author and presenter, who focuses on science, sustainability and society, and where they collide.