Spreading the Message of Later is Too Late
Later is Too Late, a report about attitudes and messaging on climate change, was released in November by the Potential Energy Coalition (PEC). This organization uses the sophisticated tools of marketing to identify the messages that are most effective in shifting beliefs and attitudes on this critical issue. The goals of Potential Energy are to change the narrative on climate change and dramatically expand the number of citizens demanding action. This from the report’s Executive Summary:
“Climate action at scale depends on public support. The changes we need require active government leadership. And governments are rightly mindful of what their constituents will and won’t support.”
Furthermore, their research:
“… shows how we can dramatically accelerate the climate transition with the right framing and messages. By understanding and responding to what really motivates people, we can strengthen their support, defend against opposing forces, and create the social and political environment that meaningful climate action depends on.”
The PEC, in collaboration with the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, also administered online surveys to citizens in 23 nations, assessing attitudes about climate change. They found a broad consensus in support of governmental action to address climate change; although, there were differences about what those policies should look like. As compared with the other countries surveyed, which included all those in the G20, support for climate policies was lowest in the United States. Respondents to the survey also rated themselves on a 7 point-scale as leaning politically left or right and the degree of difference (i.e., polarization) in support for climate policies was significantly larger in the US. Clearly, conservative voters in the US are an outlier as compared with populations around the world.
The study also found that the way in which those policies are framed can make a big difference in how much they are supported. Much of the climate messaging in the US has been about creating better jobs, economic prosperity, and ending injustice but these messages were significantly less effective than the message that later is too late to protect the people, the places and the things that we love. The message that we need to act urgently to protect the planet for future generations was twelve times more effective as compared with messages about increasing jobs and economic growth.
The founder of Potential Energy, John Marshall, was asked about the use of a universal message on an issue that is nuanced and complex: “Another benefit of a universal message is that it reinforces ideas about collective action….It transcends individual behavior change and highlights the power of cohesive, collective action. ‘Later is too late,’ but now, acting together, we can effect change.”
Since September 2021, Potential Energy has also issued a newsletter, called, That’s Interesting, where they’ve reported that: 1) more people are noticing the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, especially when it affects them personally, but many do not attribute those events to climate change and need help in “connecting the dots,” 2) the public responds better when the person communicating the climate message is someone “like them,” a person with a story they can relate to, 3) the best way to “sell” renewable energy is not that it’s cheap (even though it is) but that it is abundant and limitless and will provide independence and resilience, 4) women are more receptive to climate messages than men, 5) scientific facts are less effective than human-centered stories as told by others with whom the target audience can relate, and 6) science and scientists are still held in high regard.
Later is Too Late also reflects what climate scientists are saying. They are increasingly alarmed at the rapidly accelerated pace of global warming and extreme climatic events, such as the record highs of ocean temperatures and the loss of glacial ice in Greenland and Antarctica. The world needs to bend-the-curve in the current trajectory of emissions but this is not happening at the pace that’s needed. In the US, emissions dropped by 1.9% in 2023 but that’s only a third of what’s required to meet the Paris climate goals.
These organizations have done an excellent job in identifying the climate messages with the most impact in shifting attitudes and behaviors; however, much of the messaging to date, despite its excellent quality, has been “preaching to the choir.” The critical question then is: how and where will these messages be delivered to those who need to see them?
The immediate challenge is to capture people’s attention and the best way to do this might be with live music. Almost everyone, whatever their political persuasion, has a favorite band and musical genre. There is a rich history of musicians using their platforms for worthy causes; such as the 1985 Live Aid concerts that were live-streamed and watched by nearly 40 percent of the world’s population. Rather than raising money for the victims of climate disasters, a series of climate-themed concerts could spread the messages about the urgency and the need to employ solutions quickly to prevent, or reduce the severity of, weather catastrophes.
Climate change poses serious health risks, including higher rates of asthma, heat stress, infectious diseases, and reduced access of food and clean water. There are also life-threatening dangers from severe storms, floods, and fires. Doctors and nurses, with the encouragement of the AMA and other professional organizations, could be more proactive and public in warning of those health risks. For example, the waiting rooms of every hospital and doctor’s office could have a poster and brochures explaining the health impacts of climate change.
References are often made to the consensus among scientists but the public rarely sees or hears from climate scientists themselves. Trust comes through personal connection but few Americans have ever met a climate scientist. However, the creative arts (movies and books) are very effective in developing a sense of connection with others. While many distrust, or don’t understand, presentations of scientific facts, they are more likely to respond positively to short videos of scientists, speaking about their feelings and telling personal stories, where it’s apparent that they are honest, intelligent, passionate and trustworthy.
Climate change is an unexpected and unanticipated outgrowth of the industrial revolution. The digital revolution has been a positive force in many ways but, over time, the negative consequences is becoming more apparent and increasingly concerning. The Center for Countering Digital Hate has documented the extent to which social media corporations have monetized climate disinformation. Social media has also been implicated in damage to democratic institutions, public trust and social wellbeing. Excessive use of social media has been associated with a rise in depression and anxiety, as well as sexual exploitation and even suicides in children and adolescents. Addictive behaviors have increased with easy access to pornography, gambling, and obsessive gaming and conspiracy theories have spread like wildfire. Electronic devices intrude on our thoughts and activities and these distractions contribute to a lack of focus and productivity. Hacking of digital networks is now a significant national security threat and ransomware a danger to economies. In the meantime, the CEO’s of those corporations have become enormously wealthy. For all these reasons — and more — the technology corporations are under attack from politicians who are threatening to break up their monopoly and impose restrictions.
However, these companies have contact with almost every American — and those in other countries — many times a day — and every contact is an opportunity for a message about the urgency of the climate crisis that encourages the recipient to demand solutions. This could be accomplished if the platforms agreed (or, by an act of Congress, was compelled) to give a percentage of their advertising space for public service messages about climate change. Some of these public health messages could be short videos from doctors, nurses or scientists. This campaign would be non-partisan, as recognition of human-caused global warming and the urgent need to act is a reality and not a political stance or policy position.
The public health campaign, The Truth, about the dangers of cigarettes was effective in reducing smoking among youth. That campaign was mostly funded by tobacco companies in a settlement that followed successful lawsuits for their lies about the link between smoking and cancer. Perhaps the fossil fuel interests that have funded climate disinformation should help pay for this Climate Truth campaign?
