Scientific Communication Techniques

🌍 Ten Years After Paris: is the Climate Crisis a Disinformation Crisis? In 2015, the world made a historic promise: to keep global warming well below 2°C, and ideally below 1.5°C. We committed to major emission cuts by 2030, and net-zero by 2050. The Paris Agreement marked a new era of global climate cooperation. But ten years on, we're still struggling with cooperation while the World Meteorological Organization tells us that the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C over a 12-month period (Feb 2023–Jan 2024) for the first time. Why? 🔍 A groundbreaking new study, led by 14 researchers for the International Panel on the Information Environment, reviewed 300 studies from 2015–2025. The findings are alarming: powerful interests – fossil fuel companies, populist parties, even some governments – are systematically spreading misleading narratives to delay climate action. 🧠 Misinformation isn't just about denying climate change. It’s now about strategic skepticism – minimizing the threat, casting doubt on science-based solutions, and greenwashing unsustainable practices. 📺 This disinformation flows through social media, news outlets, corporate reports, and even policy briefings. It targets all of us – but especially policymakers, where it can shape laws and delay critical decisions. 💡 So what can we do? 1️⃣ Legislate for transparency and integrity in climate communication. 2️⃣ Hold greenwashers accountable through legal action. 3️⃣ Build global coalitions of civil society, science, and public institutions. 4️⃣ Invest in climate and media literacy for both citizens and leaders. 5️⃣ Amplify voices from underrepresented regions – like Africa – where more research is urgently needed. We must protect not only the planet’s climate, but the integrity of climate information. 🔗 Read more on how disinformation is undermining climate progress – and what we can do about it: https://lnkd.in/eDN9hKAJ 🕰️ The window is small. But with truth, science, and collective action, we can still turn the tide.

“Our messaging is not working” Enrique Ortiz, a veteran conservationist and founding member of the Andes Amazon Fund, has spent decades translating the complexities of ecosystems into action. But in his recent commentary for Mongabay, he issues a striking critique—not of science itself, but of how it’s conveyed. “Facts are not the most important part,” Ortiz writes. “The current narrative needs a re-thinking.” That rethinking, he argues, begins not with more data, but with deeper insight into how people process information, make decisions, and respond emotionally to the world around them. Ortiz’s concern is not that people are unaware of climate change. In fact, the majority of the global population acknowledges it. But many remain unmoved, caught in a web of abstract language, ideological filters, and emotional distance. Scientific accuracy, while essential, often falters in the face of cognitive and cultural barriers. Ortiz points to the findings of cognitive scientists and neuroscientists: facts rarely shift belief systems. Instead, people gravitate toward stories, experiences, and social cues. “When facing uncertainty,” he notes, “humans make decisions that are satisfactory, rather than optimal.” This disconnect, Ortiz argues, is especially clear in environmental communication. Words like “rewilding,” “green,” or “ecological” may have once inspired clarity, but have since become muddled through overuse or conflicting interpretations. Worse, they sometimes trigger skepticism or backlash. In this fog of abstraction, the human connection is lost. What’s needed, Ortiz suggests, is a new narrative strategy—one that harnesses the emotional power of stories and speaks to how people actually think and feel. He draws from his own experience as an educator: while his lectures on plant-animal interactions faded from memory, it was the stories that lingered. This phenomenon, known as “narrative transportation,” isn’t mere sentimentality. It’s a neurological reality that helps ideas stick—and decisions shift. Rather than continuing to warn of catastrophe, Ortiz believes we should share stories of adaptation and resilience. From Andean farmers modifying how they grow quinoa and potatoes, to everyday consumers making environmentally conscious choices, these narratives offer agency and hope. They bridge divides and foster shared values. “Our messaging is not working,” Ortiz writes bluntly. “We need a revolution in narratives—and in how we tell them.” That revolution may begin not in the lab or the newsroom, but in the quiet space where empathy meets understanding—and where change can finally take root. 📰 His piece: https://lnkd.in/gmrWBcc5 📸 Hoatzin. My photo.

🌍 The Playbook of Resistance: How Industries Deny, Delay, Derail, and Deflect From tobacco to fossil fuels, meat, and beyond, the tactics remain strikingly familiar. When faced with the need for transformation, industries deploy the same well-worn strategies: deny, delay, derail, deflect. Here’s how it works: ❌ Deny: “They deny the science and the harm, just like the tobacco industry once did.” Whether it’s the dangers of smoking, the role of fossil fuels in climate change, or the environmental impact of industrial farming, denial is the first line of defense. ❌ Delay: *“Strategic dialogues” or “stakeholder engagement” are often used to create the illusion of progress. The goal? Buy time while real solutions are stalled. ❌ Derail: “Billions are poured into biased studies and campaigns aimed at distorting facts. The message? No need for change—everything is fine just the way it is.” Sound familiar? Fossil fuel companies have been doing this for decades, as have industries defending factory farming and unhealthy food systems. ❌ Deflect: “They spread unscientific narratives to shift blame and focus elsewhere.” Whether it’s greenwashing or promoting marginal, unscalable “solutions,” the aim is to divert attention from the systemic changes truly needed. 💡 Why it matters: This playbook isn’t just about one industry—it’s about all industries resisting accountability. Fossil fuels, tobacco, meat, big agriculture—the pattern is clear. They oppose change, not because it isn’t possible, but because it threatens their profits. This isn’t just about industry tactics—it’s about our future. 📢 How do we fight back? By flipping the corporate playbook—using creativity, storytelling, and community power to outsmart denial, delay, derailment, and deflection.

The big mistake in climate communication – and why half the population never even hears the message. In my feeds, climate and transition are often discussed as if the problem were information. As if more reports, more charts, or louder warnings would make people change their behaviour - if only we communicated them more clearly. That doesn’t seem to work. Instead, polarization grows. What if climate communication only reaches half of humanity? In my exploration of the ”ancient group” and our different cognitive orientations, it’s becoming clear that “climate denial” doesn’t necessarily come from unwillingness. Our nervous systems are simply calibrated in different ways. Some are attuned to concrete threats, social stability, and the here-and-now - not to abstract, systemic, long-term risks. That, to me, is fascinating. In the early human group, there were always two core orientations: The open orientation focused on future, patterns, abstraction, change The social orientation focused on order, concrete reality, proximity, continuity Both were needed. Both were forms of intelligence. Both helped us survive. But in today’s society these two polarities have been pulled apart. Which means we often speak in a language only some people can hear. Others hear something entirely different - not a threat to the planet, but a threat to identity, security, and belonging. That’s why we can look at the same graphs and interpret them in completely different ways. And this, I think, is essential for the work ahead. To succeed with transition, climate communication can’t rely on facts alone. It has to find a better balance: between change and stability, abstraction and the concrete, global ethics and local identity, the future and the present, the open and the social. So the climate crisis isn’t only ecological. It’s also a communication crisis, an identity crisis, and perhaps at its core - a crisis of duality. And as long as climate communication keeps: - speaking in abstractions - triggering guilt - overlooking identity …we’ll miss the people who are currently doing their best to stabilise a world that feels overwhelmingly threatened. If we assume this is true (and the research supports it), then climate communication would need to: create safety before it calls for change include all our different perspectives build relationships, not just arguments make risks more tangible offer role, dignity, and meaning in the transition The more I read and reflect on the ancient group, the more convinced I am that we need to create spaces where different nervous systems, different polarities, and different forms of wisdom can form a whole again. Where everyone contributes something essential. Only then can the climate crisis become a shared reality, and only then can we act as the species we actually are - built for collaboration, not fragmentation. * This is from the work for my upcoming book The Starting Point. Follow and support the work - link in bio.

The sustainability debate has shifted terrain. The new climate contrarianism no longer denies the data. It 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 it. In my latest System Economics newsletter 👇, I expose three tactics used by the ecomodernist school of thought, those who argue technology and markets will fix our sustainability problems, and why these tactics are harder to spot than outright denial. 𝟭. 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 Root everything in a mythologised Enlightenment where Reason, Progress, and growth are the same thing. Anyone who doubts the model is not just wrong. They are irrational, standing against the direction of history. The framework is self-sealing: every environmental failure becomes evidence that we need more innovation, never evidence against the model. 𝟮. 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 Don't invent numbers. Select them. Show per-capita emissions, not totals. Show selected countries, not the global panel. Show the last decade, not the last century. The result? Genuine green growth, absolute decoupling at Paris-compatible rates, is across 200 years of industrial history essentially anecdotal. Every episode that did occur was reversed when growth resumed. 𝟯. 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 Test a straw man and call it science. Formalise a theory in a way that strips out its most important content. Use a proxy that doesn't match the concept being tested. Present the resulting falsification as settled. That is what they did to the doughnut idea (a social ceiling and ecological floor). Meanwhile the actual doughnut data, properly measured and published in Nature, tells a different story. Chemical pollution is currently 3,174% above its planetary boundary. Ecological overshoot is worsening nearly twice as fast as social shortfall is improving. The richest 20% of countries generate more than 40% of annual ecological overshoot while experiencing just 2% of global social shortfall. The ecomodernist does not invent numbers. They select them. That is not science. That is 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. The mirror is flattering. But it is also facing the wrong direction. See the full Substack version here 👉 https://lnkd.in/eFHHpvqc

Discourses of Climate Delay 🌎 Discourses of climate delay subtly undermine urgent climate action by framing it as either unnecessary, too disruptive, or impossible to achieve. These narratives don't deny climate change but instead promote inaction through complex messaging, effectively slowing progress toward meaningful environmental goals. One common approach is to redirect responsibility. This discourse suggests that the burden of action lies primarily with individuals or other entities, rather than addressing the systemic changes required from industries and governments. By focusing on personal responsibility alone, broader, impactful initiatives can be sidelined. Another tactic is to emphasize the downsides of change, portraying climate action as a source of economic hardship or social disruption. This discourages support for essential policies by highlighting potential challenges rather than long-term benefits, impeding collective progress. The push for non-transformative solutions is also prevalent. This narrative often suggests superficial fixes, like minor fossil fuel improvements, as adequate steps. By promoting incremental changes rather than systemic transformation, these approaches can delay necessary shifts in energy and resource management. Finally, surrender narratives frame climate change as an unsolvable problem, encouraging resignation rather than action. This viewpoint implies that adaptation is the only feasible response, discouraging mitigation efforts. Addressing these delay discourses requires a clear focus on accountability, transformative solutions, and sustained commitment. Recognizing these tactics is critical to advancing genuine progress in climate action. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #climateaction

You can’t do community engagement on a deadline. I came across a contract offer recently. It was a community engagement ‘task and finish’ project over 2 months. But community work doesn’t work like that. If you want genuine engagement then you need trust and trust isn’t a task on a Gantt chart. People don’t open up when the timeline says so, they open up when they feel safe. Genuine relationships don’t form during engagement events. They grow in conversations after the meeting has ended, during those ‘water cooler’ moments, at the school gates chats, on the walk back to the car. If your timeline has a fixed slot for “community engagement,” ask different questions: Who already has trust here and are they in the room? Where do people naturally gather and are we showing up there? Are we listening to meet a deadline or to understand what’s really going on? Community engagement isn’t the soft bit before delivery, it is THE work. It’s slow, human, and sometimes uncomfortable. But when people start to trust the process, everything else moves further and faster than any deadline could force. Please repost if you believe others need to hear this. #CommunityDevelopment #CoDesign #Trust

Maybe the problem isn’t climate denial. Maybe it’s climate messaging. We’ve been attempting to scare or shame people into caring, and it’s not effective. Is it time to completely rethink how we talk about climate and sustainability? We've spent years trying to influence people through fear, data, and moral urgency. The results? Mixed. If we want genuine buy-in, we need to be honest about what’s isn’t working. Here are seven messaging mistakes we keep repeating. 1. Leading with Guilt and Doom: "We're killing the planet!" doesn't inspire - it overwhelms. Guilt sparks awareness, but rarely leads to action. 2. Talking About “The Planet” Instead of People People don’t wake up thinking about biodiversity - they think about bills, housing, jobs. Make climate personal. What can THEY GAIN out of changing their behaviour? 3. Assuming Rational Facts Will Change Behavior: 1.5°C Warming Is Essential, But Not Sufficient. Facts Inform, but Emotions Drive Action. 4. Using Elite, exclusionary language jargon, such as “net zero” and “green premiums,” alienates the majority. Sustainability can’t sound like it’s just for experts or elites. 5. Neglecting economic and social equity when we assume everyone can afford an EV or solar system, we lose trust. Green should be accessible to everyone - not just the wealthy. 6. Framing Green as Restriction, Not Opportunity: Less driving, flying, consuming... Where’s the upside? A green transition should feel like a win: lower bills, warmer homes, and cleaner air. 7. Treating Climate Like a Separate Issue. Climate isn’t separate from the economy, housing, or healthcare - it is those things. When we silo it, we shrink its relevance. So, how do we change the story? ✅ Speak to lived realities. Discuss how green policies improve everyday life, including jobs, bills, housing, and health. ✅ Shift from sacrifice to solutions. Replace “cut back” with “get more” - resilience, savings, mobility, and wellbeing. ✅ Make it simple. Use plain, human language. Instead of “decarbonize the grid,” say “cleaner, cheaper energy in every home. Help people to measure their carbon footprint.” ✅ Center fairness easily. Ensure that the benefits of sustainability are accessible - especially to those who have been historically excluded. ✅ Embed climate into everything. Don’t treat it like a separate crusade - show how it strengthens the economy, creates jobs, and benefits communities. ✅ Gemify climate action ✅ Give intrinsic value to change of behaviour and reducing carbon footprint. 👉 Time to stop scaring people into action - and start inspiring them with what’s possible. What language has been proven to be effective for climate and sustainability? Let’s share notes. ♻️ Repost this to help spread the word, please! 👉 Follow Gilad Regev for more insights like this.

Communicating Net Zero Effectively is not an easy task but not impossible, here are some of the steps we take when communicating such a technical topic 𝐅𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬: Instead of just using the term "net zero", we focus on explaining the positive outcomes that come from the actions needed to achieve net zero, such as economic growth, job creation, better public health, and energy security. This can help people see the real-world benefits. For example, the city of Copenhagen has made a commitment to be carbon neutral by 2025. By focusing their messaging on how this will create green jobs, improve air quality, and make the city more livable, they have been able to build broad public support for their net zero plans. 𝐔𝐬𝐞 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞: We Avoid technical jargon and complicated terms. We tend to Explain what net zero means and how it will be achieved in clear, easy-to-understand language. This makes the concept more accessible and less controversial. For example, The state of California has had success with this approach. When communicating their goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, they use straightforward language about transitioning to clean energy and reducing emissions, rather than relying on complex technical terms. 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩 We Build a wide coalition by engaging businesses, communities, and other groups. This inclusive approach can help us gather support from many different perspectives and reduce polarization. For example, The UK's Climate Change Committee has exemplified this by bringing together representatives from industry, environmental groups, and local governments to develop their net zero strategy. This has helped ensure the plan addresses the needs of diverse stakeholders. 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐋𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 Highlight real-world examples of the practical steps being taken towards net zero and the benefits these are bringing to local communities. This can make the concept more concrete and show the progress being made. For example, The city of Oslo, Norway has done this effectively by showcasing how their investments in electric vehicles, renewable energy, and energy efficiency have improved air quality and reduced household energy bills in local neighborhoods. 𝐁𝐞 𝐅𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 Be open to using different terms like "carbon neutrality" or "clean growth" instead of "net zero" if that works better for the audience and political context. The key is finding language that resonates. For example, The state of New York has found success with this approach. When communicating climate goals to certain rural communities, they have emphasized "clean energy" and "sustainable development" rather than the term "net zero", which was less familiar and potentially off-putting. #climatechange #communciation #stakeholderengagement

There’s a recurring pattern in climate conversations: enormous weight placed on pledges and commitments, and far too little attention on the practical mechanisms that would actually accelerate transitions and financing in the real economy. We insist on ambitious NDCs, while offering little support for countries to develop robust, technical transition roadmaps and scenarios that identify least-cost pathways for clean power, electrified transport, efficient buildings, and clean industry. Those roadmaps don’t just map what’s possible; they reveal which investments are most practical and affordable, and they surface the specific financing barriers that must be addressed. Year after year, we debate “ambition gaps” while overlooking the very tools that would allow countries to not only meet but exceed their NDCs. Similarly, in climate finance, we fixate on headline commitments instead of insisting that developed countries confront the structural barriers that matter most -- above all, the systemic biases that make borrowing costs in EMDEs 2-3x times higher than in developed countries for both sovereigns and private actors (https://lnkd.in/eJYAh6WN). That single distortion makes viable projects non-financeable. The LCOE of clean energy can triple when the cost of capital is 5 percentage points higher. But because the headlines focus on what is or isn’t pledged, we deflect focus from the far more consequential work of reducing those barriers and working directly with real-economy actors to structure financeable projects. In a short interview last week on CGTN America, I tried to distill this point: https://lnkd.in/eq5grVkw. We do not phase out fossil fuels through phase-out pledges; we phase them out by decarbonizing the sectors that consume them. And we shouldn’t expect finance to flow because of financial pledges; finance flows when we make transitions financeable -- through roadmaps, investment plans, financing frameworks, and by addressing real and perceived risks. For the next year, let’s focus on ensuring every country & region can develop compelling transition roadmaps and robust least-cost economy-wide scenarios; on reducing the cost of capital and tackling structural financing constraints; and on structuring financeable transitions, through coordination and risk-sharing mechanisms. The transition is already underway. But it’s targeted, practical action, not pledges and commitments, that puts wind in the sails.