How to frame climate disruption for constructive dialogue

Climate Communication Reimagined: Appealing Across Moral Foundations Recently, while working on energy transition scenarios for the Netherlands’ decarbonization by 2050 with TenneT, Jonathan Haidt’s insights from The Righteous Mind came sharply into focus. Full article: https://lnkd.in/gKQ4HfaQ Haidt research highlights six moral foundations — Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity, and Liberty — and argues that conservatives broadly use all six, while progressives strongly emphasize Care and Fairness. This explains why traditional climate messaging, dominated by progressive framing around harm prevention and fairness, struggles to resonate with broader audiences, especially conservatives. Effective climate advocacy requires blending messages to activate moral intuitions across this entire spectrum. For example, on clean energy jobs, progressives emphasize economic fairness, while conservatives focus on national strength and independence. A blended message: “Let’s revitalize America with clean energy, creating good jobs for all to keep our nation strong and independent.” On pollution, progressives speak to health impacts, conservatives to purity and national pride. Combining these, we get: “Cutting pollution protects our children's health and maintains America’s beautiful landscapes and clean air.” Framing climate change as a shared national challenge connects progressive concerns about global justice with conservative values around national security and heritage protection: “Protect our homeland from climate threats, safeguarding communities and the American way of life we cherish.” Even innovation and tradition can align: “Clean energy innovation continues America’s proud history of leadership, preserving the land and values we cherish for future generations.” In the Netherlands, debates around overhead transmission expansion benefit from similar messaging. Instead of purely technical arguments, framing transmission infrastructure as essential to national pride, heritage preservation, and economic vitality can resonate widely: “New transmission lines represent Dutch innovation, safeguarding our landscapes, health, and economy for generations.” I encountered this effective moral framing earlier while co-authoring Canada’s municipal guide for planned retreat amid climate risks. Communities rallied behind retreat initiatives when messaging emphasized collective good and community identity. European research, especially around Brexit, reinforces that messaging inclusive of national identity, sovereignty, and cultural integrity resonates more deeply than approaches limited to individual-focused morality. Ultimately, climate advocacy must leverage the full range of moral foundations to bridge divides and build broader consensus. Haidt’s framework is not only insightful, it’s essential for effective communication on climate and energy transitions.

From Abstract Numbers to Everyday Reality: Why Climate Communication Must Change Climate change communication only works when it resonates with people’s lived experiences. Most audiences don’t connect with abstract metrics like millimetres of sea‑level rise. But they do understand what it means for their health, their families, their jobs, and how long they might live. When climate impacts are framed in terms of life expectancy, public health risks, or economic costs, the issue becomes personal, immediate, and relevant. That’s what motivates action—not fear, not technical jargon, but clarity about how climate change affects our daily lives now. This Guardian piece is a timely reminder that reframing climate science around human outcomes isn’t “dumbing it down”—it’s making it count. 👉 https://lnkd.in/gCWdMQpT If we want real engagement and real change, we need to keep translating science into impacts people can feel, understand, and act upon.

The climate movement has been running the same playbook for decades. Inform people. Remove barriers. Change behavior. Inspire. Push solutions. Publish reports. When there's a crisis or emergency, get louder. And when it doesn't work, try harder. It's not working. What research in trauma, depth psychology, and psychosocial science has shown us: people aren't disengaged because they don't care. They care deeply. What looks like apathy is protection. A psychic defense against something genuinely overwhelming, in a culture with no infrastructure for that kind of reckoning. You can't nudge your way through that. Something is shifting. Climate psychology is going mainstream. After decades, practitioners are starting to be trained in listening, attunement, relational intelligence. We are catching up with decades of neuroscience and trauma research. The field is starting to ask different questions. Not: "how do we get people to act?" but instead: "what would make it safe for the care that's already there, to come forward?" Not" "how do we motivate people" or "remove barriers." Instead: "How can we help people navigate their anxiety about the bigness of these systemic crises, and instead focus on what we CAN do?" That's the reframe. And it changes everything. Examples can be seen in Kite Insights "Debatable" formats that foster actual real talk and discussions, the recent collaboration between Climate Psychology Alliance and the National Emergency Briefing, and so many more. New post on Becoming Guides: https://lnkd.in/grGZqUSx

How can we have productive climate conversations with people who might have different priorities and viewpoints than our own?  Climate Outreach has done extensive research on what resonates with diverse audiences in Alberta, the “Texas of Canada,” as my Albertan husband semi-affectionately calls it. (Hi to my family in Edmonton! <3) These tips apply anywhere for how to approach your audience well, a core tenant of good conversations.  The Alberta Narratives audience report offers tailored language that’s been tested to communicate respectfully and effectively with eight groups: oil sands workers, conservatives, environmentalists, rural Albertans, business leaders, youth, new Canadians, and people of faith.  For example, Climate Outreach suggests focusing on gratitude for hard work and prosperity (not entitlement) when talking to conservatives. For farmers and ranchers, focus on "solutions that make sense within a rural context such as renewable energy”, where solar panels are seen as more realistic than urban-centric biking and electric vehicles. What not to do: don’t make people feel guilty “for who they are and what they care about”. Note that respectfully challenging people requires strong trust (which takes time to build). Any challenges must “be done in a way that supports their sense of shared identity, and suggests that they hold they keys to solutions.” (p. 58) Climate Outreach tested language that was consistently approved across all eight groups, and rejected language that any group strongly disliked, with the goal of building a foundation for shared conversation that does not drive polarization. They offer a sample narrative, which can be adapted for authentic, effective communication. For example, to talk about energy, see their guide below. What are some of your most successful climate conversations? Your most challenging? Let me know in the comments.

Recent research on climate communication with young audiences shows that narratives centred on catastrophe and individual responsibility can generate anxiety and disengagement rather than mobilisation. When the message becomes overwhelming, concern does not translate into action but into inactivism, a form of emotional paralysis that weakens both understanding and agency. The alternative is not to dilute the urgency of climate change, but to rethink how it is communicated. Evidence from classroom-based outreach suggests that participatory approaches fundamentally change how young people respond. When communication moves away from one-way transmission and becomes interactive, through discussions, simulations and problem-solving exercises, it reduces anxiety while increasing trust in science and motivation to act. What emerges is a shift in the role of communication itself. It is no longer sufficient to inform. Communication must enable people to engage, understand and see pathways for action. This requires avoiding both denialism and doomism, while maintaining scientific accuracy and a sense of urgency. In a context shaped by misinformation, polarisation and declining trust, this distinction becomes operational. For younger audiences in particular, the framing of the message determines whether they disengage or participate. Authors: Marta Galvagno, Chiara Guarnieri, Sofia Koliopoulos, Paolo Pogliotti, Gianluca Filippa, Federico Grosso, Nicolas Lozito, Francesca Munerol, Sara Favre, Edoardo Cremonese, Alessandro Benati, Simone Gottardelli, Fabrizio Sapone, Francesco Avanzi

In a world bombarded with existential threats, the narrative of doom has become a familiar refrain. Yet new research involving over 255 behavioral scientists and climate change experts tested the effects of 11 common messages meant to boost climate change beliefs, policy support, and concrete action. Their extensive study reveals that while doom-laden messages capture social media attention, they fail to inspire real-world action against climate change. Among the various strategies tested, one particularly effective approach stood out: emphasizing the impact of one's current actions on future generations. This intervention involved asking participants to write a letter to a socially close child, who would read it in 25 years as an adult, describing their current efforts to ensure a habitable planet. This strategy not only personalized the issue but also framed climate action within the context of legacy and intergenerational responsibility. This result highlights how effective it is to present climate action as the legacy we're creating for future generations. It connects with our basic wish to be remembered positively, to make a meaningful contribution, and to safeguard our loved ones. This method goes beyond the immobilizing effect of doom and gloom, encouraging a feeling of responsibility, optimism, and a drive to take real action. Moreover, the research highlights the importance of tailoring messages to diverse audiences, acknowledging the complex landscape of climate communication. What resonates in one country or culture may not hold the same power in another, reminding us of the need for nuanced and context-sensitive strategies. The study also reaffirms the effectiveness of messages that emphasize scientific consensus and moral imperatives, suggesting a path forward that is both hopeful and grounded in shared ethical responsibilities. Fear alone cannot drive sustainable change; we need narratives that empower and unite us in collective action. #climateaction #climatecommunication #climatecrisis https://lnkd.in/dGzgMCyY

At its core, climate change isn’t just a scientific issue—it’s a deeply personal one. It challenges people’s way of life, their identity, and their sense of security. That’s why climate conversations often trigger one of two responses: 🔹 Overwhelm – People feel paralyzed by the enormity of the crisis, spinning in anxiety and despair. 🔹 Shutting Down – People disengage, dismiss, or resist because the problem feels too big or threatening. The key to effective communicating about climate? Emotional awareness - both yours and the person you are talking to. Here are some things to think about when having a conversation about climate with someone: ✅ Know where they are. Are they overwhelmed? Help them find tangible actions and agency. Are they shutting down? Ask questions, understand their perspective, and find common ground. ✅ Know where you are. If you’re stuck in frustration or urgency, it can make engagement harder. Self-awareness helps you communicate more effectively. ✅ Listen before you lecture. The goal isn’t just to provide information—it’s to create a space where people feel heard and open to change. Climate literacy isn’t just about facts—it’s about understanding emotions, meeting people where they are, and moving the conversation forward.

What if worsening climate disruption doesn't act as a wake up call? An emergent feature of the new climate reality is that anger at the failure of incumbent parties to protect people from climate disruption is benefiting political forces that deny climate change and delay action. But we can break this loop and instead trigger constructive loops, even as climate impacts escalate. Óscar Puente - Spain's transport minister - is seeing the destructive loop: https://lnkd.in/e5JCT6C2 "As the authorities face a backlash over fatal floods, Puente said there was a 'visceral reaction' to disasters in which fury at the authorities eclipsed analysis of the underlying climate causes." As has Luisa Neubauer: https://lnkd.in/en2bCJZE “Like many, I did buy into the idea that big catastrophes would do something to politics. I was naively believing there was a democratic responsibility that would live through coalition changes and climate changes.” These are examples of one type of what James Dyke and I call 'derailment risk'... ...the risk that the worsening fallout from climate change & nature loss could undermine our collective ability to tackle the causes of this crisis. Derailment risk is a critical strategic challenge as the world exceeds 1.5C: https://lnkd.in/eFuF6zP3 But the derailment doom loop can be broken. It starts with recognising and acting on derailment as a key 'strategic risk': a threat to our ability to execute effective climate strategies. A Strategic Climate Risks Initiative project is currently exploring how. Yet some responses are obvious. As Neubauer says, breaking the derailment loops partly lies in fights for democracy and truth. As Valencia/LA show, spiralling climate destabilisation also confronts us with the need to rapidly scale up adaptation. This must be done in a way that not only better protects people now but enables more rapid decarbonisation so they are protected over the longer term. Fundamentally, climate action should be about making people safer. What we call 'adaptation' in the climate world can be a highly salient intervention, helping people now. An awkward truth from Valencia/LA is that 'pro-climate' parties failed to sufficiently invest in adaptation and emergency response. This opened room for a backlash and exploitation by the far right. But this can't just be defensive. Adaptation must simultaneously reduce emissions. This is eminently possible. Like insulated buildings protecting against temperature extremes and reducing bills while lowering emissions. And nature-positive farming bolstering ecological resilience and food security while lowering emissions. The list goes on, as the folks at Climate Majority Project have pointed out through their work on 'strategic adaptation'.

How we “frame” the topic of climate change decides whether people listen or zone out. Here are three ways to use framing in your communication 👇  ✨ Possibility instead of pure problems  Rather than constantly highlighting looming problems, point out the possibilities for a greener, healthier, and better future. ✨ Local instead of only global Global change and global effects are challenging to visualize and believe in. Sometimes more targeted, local case studies can inspire more hope and action, than talking about global emission reductions. This leads me to... ✨ Tangible instead of abstract Break away from abstract benefits (like reducing the amount of CO2 emissions) and focus rather on specifics (avoiding health hazards, reducing the risk of flooding, improving life quality).  I believe the way we speak about the climate could highly benefit from a 101 crash course in marketing. Know your audience, speak their language, and sell well with relevant benefits.  What do you think? Cheers - M #climatecommunication #climatechange #climateaction

Climate action is often framed as a technical challenge, but at its core, it is also a generational one. I recently explored a resource on the “10 Actions to Support Intergenerational Collaboration on Climate Action” by the Phenomenal Women Global. It offers practical guidance on how youth and senior decision-makers can work together more meaningfully to advance climate justice. It lays out practical ways institutions can move from consultation to shared leadership; a collaboration that is not symbolic, requiring deliberate shifts in power, access, and trust. What struck me is how much of this work is about trust, listening, and unlearning traditional hierarchies, not just creating more meetings or panels. It’s not only about having a seat at the table, but about having influence, resources, and shared ownership of outcomes. The framework highlights actions such as: 🔹 Creating real feedback loops between youth and decision-makers 🔹 Sharing power and opening leadership spaces 🔹 Resourcing youth-led climate work 🔹 Valuing lived experience alongside formal expertise It’s a strong reminder that young people are not only inheritors of the climate crisis, but also co-creators of solutions, when given meaningful space. Where do you see tokenism still replacing true collaboration? #ClimateAction #YouthLeadership #IntergenerationalDialogue #ClimateJustice #InclusiveGovernance