Balancing micro and macro climate change messaging

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.

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.

It is time to rethink how we talk about climate change 🌎 Sharing my latest article for Inc. Magazine on why fear alone is not an effective long term strategy for climate communication. Over the past decades, the climate narrative has centered on alarming data, catastrophic projections, and worst case scenarios. While this approach has successfully elevated the urgency of the issue, it has not always translated into meaningful behavioral or systemic change. Fear is a powerful motivator for immediate reaction, but its effect diminishes over time. Constant exposure to catastrophic framing often leads to emotional fatigue, desensitization, and disengagement. Without clear solutions or a sense of agency, the public is left concerned but uncertain about how to engage. The article argues for a more balanced and constructive communication approach. One that complements the sense of urgency with a forward looking and relatable vision. Rather than focusing only on sacrifice and decline, climate change can also be framed as an opportunity to rethink how we live, move, and produce. Drawing on insights from Futerra’s Sell the Sizzle report, the piece outlines four critical elements of effective climate messaging: Vision, Choice, Plan, and Participation. These components can help build a narrative that is not only accurate, but also engaging and action oriented. Reframing the story of climate change is not about reducing the severity of the issue. It is about increasing the relevance of the message. By presenting tangible and near term benefits, and by inviting people into the solution, communication can become a catalyst for broader participation and deeper commitment. You can read the full article here 👇 https://lnkd.in/g4hcb-Sd #sustainability #business #sustainable #esg