We all want to convince people that the green future is a better alternative to what we have today.
In a five-part miniseries, I will explore five messaging mistakes climate communicators must overcome to drive climate action. Part one is all about choosing the correct story elements.
For more than three decades, environmentalists, activists, and climate change communicators have struggled to gain popular support for climate action.
It's frustrating. The facts are so clear. Ninety-seven percent of the scientific community agrees with the main conclusions. We need massive action, and we need it now. It really shouldn't be so hard to convince people to protect the planet they depend on.
An urgent need for better storytelling
However, there must be something wrong with parts of the mainstream climate change communication. Too much of the climate narrative produces a sense of hopelessness, disengagement, and sometimes even resistance.
There are certainly some developments in the public perception of climate change. Still, to drive action and save the environment. We need to shift parts of our messaging and storytelling radically.
We know to make the right choices going forward.
My focus is on presenting better solutions. We know much about how the human brain reacts to different messaging.
And we can lean on many longitudinal studies, literature reviews, and meta-analyses from behavioral economics, psychology, sociology, and anthropology.
However, we must address what we have done wrong or sub-optimal to present better solutions.
Part 1 in a five-part miniseries
Today, I start a miniseries on the five main messaging mistakes we should avoid in our climate change communication.
Again, the goal is to help us understand what we must emphasize going forward.
Without further ado, let's kick off number one.
Messaging mistake number 1 is "Making the Audience the Story's Villain."
This is arguably the most prominent mistake within the mainstream Climate Change narrative.
Per Espen Stoknes describes in his book What we think about when we try not to Think about global warming, the "mother of all climate change narratives," namely the doomsday narrative.
Here's what Stoknes says about this compelling storyline:
However, I think that one story, in particular, has been contributing to the stalemate of the climate paradox. Since it is so easy to interpret literally, it has become universal and fundamentalist, stalling progress toward societal transformation. The story is the apocalypse of climate hell, and it has been used often, implicitly, and without reflection in climate communication.
This is a predominant story in Christian, Western culture. We are all sinners. We often do the things we don't want to do, and we are all in the midst of a struggle between our capacity for both good and evil. If we let evil win, things lead to hell.
In the Christian narrative, the rough state of humans is ultimately resolved by repentance, forgiveness, redemption, and grace.
In the climate hell narrative, however, there is no apparent resolution to our deep-rooted problem. And I believe that may cause us to feel hopeless. The narrative causes anxiety and action paralysis.
Compelling storytelling lead to narrative transportation
Compelling storytelling is about creating narrative transportation and narrative traction.
I will explore the main elements of compelling stories in future blog posts. But for now, the Hero's journey is one of the most famous frameworks for understanding vital story elements and plot structure.
To experience narrative transportation in a story, we must identify with the story's Hero and the Hero's struggle to achieve their goals.
The Hero fights against a villain, representing the forces standing in the way. None of us want to identify with the story's villain.
Environmentalists and climate communicators have made the public feel like the "bad guy" in the story for decades.
Why making the audience the villain is a messaging mistake
When someone is labeled as a villain, they are often immediately put on the defensive and are less likely to be open to change.
This is because being labeled as a villain implies that they are doing something wrong or harmful, which can be perceived as an attack on their character or actions.
In the context of climate communication, labeling someone as a villain can create resistance and opposition to the green shift, making it harder to achieve the necessary changes.
What to do instead
Empower the public to become heroes in the story by highlighting how cool the new technology and solutions are. Tell stories about how the green future enables us to become a better version of ourselves.
What are the positive benefits to their lives?
How will it make them stronger, more powerful, more capable people in their social circle?
People are primarily motivated by identity - who they are and who they might become.
That's where we need to direct our messaging and storytelling!
I see you next week. Then I will cover messaging mistake # 2:
Making Exclusively Rational Arguments.
Comments