Climate Messaging for Long-Term Impact

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.

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.

Silence on sustainability is not strategy Clarity, not caution, drives impact 🌎 Great read today in Harvard Business Review exploring how companies can strengthen their sustainability communications in response to rising political pressure and evolving stakeholder expectations. Rather than retreating or reducing visibility, the authors make a strong case for rethinking communication as a strategic tool to build trust, enhance relevance, and unlock the full value of sustainability efforts. While some organizations are choosing silence to avoid scrutiny (from political backlash to accusations of greenwashing) this approach can undermine credibility. Public concern about climate inaction remains high, and companies that choose not to speak risk appearing disengaged. At the same time, sustainability strategies are increasingly linked to tangible business outcomes, from cost savings and resource efficiency to supply chain resilience and long-term risk management. To respond effectively, companies must begin by understanding what matters to their audiences. This means moving beyond general assumptions and using employee and customer insights to shape communication that is specific, relevant, and grounded in lived experience. Boston Children’s Hospital offers a clear example of how stakeholder input can guide both communications and operational decisions in ways that enhance internal alignment and external resonance. Equally important is the way messages are delivered. While factual accuracy is critical, the most effective communications also connect emotionally, using storytelling to make abstract issues relatable. The article emphasizes the power of framing climate action in terms of widely held values (such as protecting future generations or ensuring business continuity) to reach broader audiences and avoid polarizing debates. Companies also need to move beyond the conventional sustainability report. While compliance remains necessary, relying solely on annual disclosures can limit impact. Organizations like Tillamook and Boston Medical Center are showing how digital formats and multi-channel content can make complex information more accessible, and how continuous storytelling can keep sustainability top of mind across stakeholder groups. By grounding their messages in real insights, using language that resonates across audiences, and choosing formats that encourage dialogue and connection, companies can position themselves as credible leaders in a space where expectations are only becoming more complex. #sustainability #sustainable #esg #business #greenwashing #greenhushing

Lately I’ve been obsessed with this question: Why do some climate messages move people—and others don’t? In a new episode of Bloomberg Television's new show Quantum Marketing by Raja Rajamannar, Pranav Yadav (CEO of Neuro-Insight) breaks down how the brain actually responds to storytelling—and how that applies to climate advocacy. Around the 17-minute mark, he analyzes a well-produced climate ad and explains, through neuromarketing data, why it doesn’t stick. The key insight? Psychological distance. The ad talks about climate change, but not in a way that connects to people's personal context—what they care about in their day-to-day lives. And when something feels distant—geographically, emotionally, or temporally—the brain tunes it out. It fails to encode in memory, which means it doesn’t influence behavior. What does work? Stories that activate memory encoding by making the stakes immediate and relatable. That connect to identity, not just intellect. That meet people where they are—then move them. This kind of research lights me up. It’s why I believe we’re at an inflection point in climate storytelling. At TIME, we’re working to reframe climate not just as an environmental issue, but as an economic one. A human one. A business one. If you're doing research in this space—neuroscience, behavioral design, storytelling strategy—or want to help us build a better framework for climate narratives, let’s talk. We need to scale these insights and we have the tools to do it. Watch the whole video but especially the last bit after 17 min if you're thinking about how to communicate urgency, value, and impact in this moment. 🎥 https://lnkd.in/et_uK4c6 #climatecommunications #neuromarketing #behaviorchange #storytelling #TIME #climateaction #businesscaseforclimate

🌍 New megastudy on what motivates people to engage in climate advocacy 🥳 In our PNAS Nexus megastudy (N = 31,324), we tested 17 theory-driven behavior change interventions to increase public, political, and financial #climate advocacy in the United States. Our findings suggest that brief, low-cost messages can meaningfully increase climate advocacy and offer practical guidance for large-scale public outreach. Messages emphasizing collective efficacy and the emotional benefits of action were the most consistently effective, increasing advocacy by up to 10 percentage points. Appeals to binding moral foundations were also effective, including among Republicans. 💚 Hugely grateful to Danielle Goldwert, Madalina Vlasceanu, and Sara Constantino for their excellent leadership and to all the other great collaborators, including Ramit Debnath, Cameron Brick 🟥, Anandita Sabherwal, Matt Goldberg, Steve Rathje, Kim Doell, PhD, Ganga Shreedhar, and Claudia R. Schneider. Read the article (open-access) here: https://lnkd.in/ekzBJMeX Consumer and Behavioural Insights Group Copenhagen Business School Klima- og Omstillingsrådet Centre for Sustainability

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

Have 30 years of COP changed the world or just the rhetoric? Thirty years of COP have bent the curve, but not enough. Yet at the corporate level, a lot of climate language was written as aspiration instead of constraint: “net zero by 2050” became a kind of corporate wallpaper while hard, near-term decisions about products, supply chains, and capital spending were put on hold. The recent Arc’teryx fireworks fiasco in Tibet is an example of how that era is ending. A brand that built its identity around mountain ethics signed off on a giant high-altitude fireworks performance in a fragile Himalayan ecosystem, triggering public outrage, reputational damage, and penalties for ecological damage. Consumers who care about climate are quick to catch the cognitive dissonance and greenwashing, and Arc’teryx has been punished for playing the “impact for eyeballs” game when it is not backed by real stewardship. The keyword here is real stewardship. The answer is not to write off climate pledges or to stop communicating success, but the way we do it has to change. The companies that will elevate their credibility are the ones that communicate their measurable impact well, with radical honesty that goes into the detail of the process, shows how the hard tradeoffs are made, and invites scrutiny from investors, employees, and customers. In other words, the role of PR is shifting from embellishing climate claims to magnifying genuine impact in a way that stakeholders can test and trust.

I may have a soft spot for communication (it’s what I do!) but I genuinely believe that communication is at the heart of driving meaningful change. And there has never been a more important time than now to use our creative skills to make a difference, regardless of the industry we work in. At the non-profit H&M Foundation, we’re on a mission to support the textile industry halve its greenhouse gas emissions every decade by 2050, while ensuring a just and fair transition for both people and the planet. But making this transformation possible requires every voice and every skill — including the power of creativity and communication.  Communication shapes perception, builds awareness, and inspires action. As communicators and creatives, we can create narratives that balance urgency with hope, showing that positive change isn’t just necessary — it’s possible. The stories we tell can transform passive awareness into active engagement, motivating organizations and individuals to take concrete steps forward and see themselves as part of the solution. However, creating this kind of communication is no easy feat. Climate communication walks a fine line. While we want to inspire action and hope, we must avoid oversimplification. I believe it’s crucial to pair fact-based science and context with creativity and storytelling. Because evidence gives stories substance, but stories give evidence meaning. While it’s clear that meaningful change requires action on many fronts, I think that communication plays a role in raising awareness and driving engagement towards the collective action necessary to address the climate crisis. Of course, communication alone won’t change the world, but I think it can spark the conversations, ideas, and behaviours that lead to lasting impact. So, no matter the industry, I believe this is the time to use our skills to bridge the gap between awareness and action. For anyone in the creative space, I highly recommend A New Era in Climate Communications by New Zero World and the Global Commons Alliance. By bringing together science and storytelling, this report reimagines how we can address the climate crisis. It is a must-read and a call to action to turn our creative energy toward meaningful impact. The challenge is big, but so are our ideas. Let’s get to work! Read the report: https://lnkd.in/dRyvwFRV #ClimateCommunications #ClimateAction #Storytelling #SustainabilityCommunications

WE NEED TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE DIFFERENTLY Recently, 15,000 climate scientists once again sounded the alarm about the climate crisis. 'The world is facing a critical and unpredictable new phase in the climate crisis and the consequences will be incalculable. Only through decisive action can we inherit future generations the livable world they deserve.' This alarming message had little impact in the media, it was picked up by some newspapers, but was not the talk of the day in talk shows and on social media. After that, people went back to business as usual. I also notice it in myself, when I read a report like this it hits dead on, it no longer really enters. This is because climate scientists have been coming up with the same message for many years: the climate is not doing well, we are not doing what we should and we are heading for a potential disaster. The tone is becoming more insistent but the song remains the same. The impact of this kind of doom-and-gloom message is virtually zero, it does not prompt people to take more action, if only it were true. This is why I could agree with Mare de Wit's opinion piece, which argues that science still has a lot to learn about how best to convey a substantive message. Numerous studies show that people only really take action when they are touched by emotion and feeling. There is a difference between knowing and understanding, and between knowing and understanding is feeling. One physical experience of climate change, such as at the North Pole, has more impact than any climate report. Only when you actually feel the urgency do you start acting on it. It is not knowing and knowing that form the basis for real change, but hope and desire. Hope is a focus of the heart and soul and desire is a feeling that comes from your heart, driven by inspiration. Hope makes one long for change and hope makes it possible to discern between good and bad changes. So we need to free ourselves from hopelessness, says professor of theology Erik Borgman. So we can do two things differently: (i) deliver the message differently and (ii) offer people hope and desire. Bringing the message differently does mean indicating the urgency from a factual basis, but also indicating what has already been achieved and what are positive climate trends. And as for hope and desire, indicate what people themselves can do, that behavioural change alone can lead to 40-70% less CO2 emissions, and show how this is already happening. Content remains crucial, but form is also important. In doing so, seek cooperation with social psychologists, communication scientists, and influencers so that the message also resonates emotionally. In doing so, also use modern communication channels like TikTok and interactive platforms that citizens use. This increases the chances that the message does come across. https://lnkd.in/d4WNdMjh

The way we communicate about climate change is wrong. We talk to everyone in the same way, without adapting our message. The result? Most people outside our echo chambers cannot relate to what we say, and just ignore us or get defensive. Our message is lost and makes no impact. This is why last year I came up with the Climate Funnel framework. To help changemakers like you communicate more intentionally and effectively about climate change. The goal? To inspire more people to take high-impact actions for systems change. The idea is very simple - take a traditional sales funnel, and apply it to climate action. You could actually apply it to any other topic or issue of your choice - biodiversity, circular economy, degrowth, etc. The way we use this framework is very simple: 1. Identify where people are in their journey. 2. Adapt your message to meet them where they are. 3. Inspire them to move forward in the Climate Funnel. We all have different life circumstances and stories. Recognizing this and that we are all at different stages of our climate action journeys is key. Try persuading someone outside the Climate Funnel to go vegan or sell their car or stop flying or go to protests, and watch their reaction. Adapting our message is key. Here are some easy tips for you to communicate more effectively with people at each stage in the funnel: 1. Deniers - Just ignore them and move on. Your energy will be better spent in the remaining 90% of the population. 2. Unaware - Try to find out what they care about and ask them more about it. Keep it super local and relevant to them. 3. Aware - Continue learning more about the local issues that matter most to them. Develop a relationship with them - people will listen to you more if they trust you. 3. Motivated - Help them by joining forces. Suggest a few ideas of very easy actions that you can take together. 4. Low impact action - Firstly, acknowledge the impact they are making with those actions. Secondly, inspire them to start taking higher impact actions, one step at a time. 5. High impact action - The main challenge here is that people tend to remain in their echo chambers. Remind them that one of the most impactful actions we can take is inspiring more people to get into the Climate Funnel and move through it. Right now, there are too many people outside the Climate Funnel, or in the initial layers. What we need is an inverted Climate Funnel, where lots of people have moved through the different layers and are taking high impact action. I recently gave a talk about it in London - I'll drop the link in the comments in case you want to learn more. It would mean the world to me if you could share that video too. Let's inspire more people to get into the funnel and move through it. P.S. What do you think about the Climate Funnel? Helpful or not?