Reframing climate coverage to engage audiences

We have been telling people the world is ending. And then wondering why they feel paralyzed. A review published in Sustainable Development, by Su, Kaburu, and colleagues across institutions in China, Ireland, Australia, Brazil, and beyond, takes on one of the quieter contradictions in climate action: the communication strategies meant to mobilize people may be actively undermining their capacity to act. The argument is not that climate urgency is overstated. It is that fear, deployed as the default register of climate messaging, produces a paradox. It captures attention, briefly, and then generates the very psychological conditions that make sustained engagement impossible. Eco-anxiety, helplessness, climate doomism, the belief that it is already too late and that responsibility therefore belongs to no one, are not failures of audience character. They are predictable responses to a communication environment that offers apocalypse without agency. The numbers are uncomfortable to sit with. A survey of 10,000 young people across 10 countries found that 59% were very or extremely worried about climate change, and over half reported feeling sad, anxious, angry, powerless, or guilty. These are not people who lack awareness. They are people drowning in it, without a clear sense of what their hands can actually do. The paper proposes a reorientation: toward messaging that is positive, personal, and people-centred. Positive, not in the sense of denial or false reassurance, but in the psychological sense, mobilizing hope, curiosity, and joy as motivational states rather than fear and guilt. Personal, meaning closing the distance between the crisis and the individual, moving away from glaciers and polar bears toward the concrete texture of daily life, health, food, cost of living, the morning coffee. People-centred, meaning grounded in what people can actually do, within their real agency and real constraints. This is precisely where Eco-Affective Health thinking enters. The field has long understood that emotional states are not incidental to environmental behavior. They are the medium through which the relationship between people and their environment is negotiated. Fear activates threat responses, which can produce short bursts of protective action, but sustained engagement with a long-horizon problem like climate change requires something different: a felt sense of efficacy, of connection, of meaning. These are broaden-and-build emotions, as the paper frames it, states that expand the repertoire of possible responses rather than narrowing it to fight or flight. Article link: https://lnkd.in/d98vMNAG Follow our work at ewahlab.com #EWAHLab #EcoAffectiveHealth #ClimateCommunication #ClimateAnxiety #PlanetaryHealth #ClimateMentalHealth #EcoAnxiety #ClimateAction #EnvironmentalPsychology #PublicHealth #GlobalSouth

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.

How do we make climate communication resonate with the very people it affects the most? 💡 🌎 In my latest essay for Question of Cities, I reflect on this pressing question, drawing on my experience in journalism and storytelling, as well as research and fieldwork in the climate space over the last few years. The article outlines how dominant climate narratives often remain inaccessible, overly technical, and disconnected from everyday lived realities. Some key takeaways: 🔁 1. Translation isn’t enough—localisation matters. Efforts like the UNDP Climate Dictionary are welcome, but we need to go further. People don’t say “Jalvayu Parivartan”—they talk about rain delays, changing festivals, and crop failures. Climate terms must emerge from how people experience change, not how we define it. Climate must be framed as an everyday issue. For most people in India, climate change competes with daily concerns like food, housing, and livelihoods. 📚 2. Storytelling enables agency. We need to shift from policy briefs to bottom-up storytelling, where a fisherwoman in the Sundarbans or a tribal woman in Odisha becomes the knowledge holder. 🎭 3. Embrace diverse media and people’s science. From metaphor-rich language to theatre, dance, and music—creative formats hold emotional and cultural power. Even community-defined terms like “wet drought” offer nuance and should shape climate adaptation strategies. 📰4. Mainstream media must build capacity. At a recent workshop in Maharashtra, we saw how rural reporters struggle to differentiate between climate and weather. There’s little support for them—especially women—to cover these stories. Climate needs to be integrated into all beats, not confined to disaster or weather coverage. 🎯 5. Climate communications is not just outreach—it’s strategy. Too often, communication is underfunded and under-prioritised. But to build inclusive, impact-driven programmes, we must invest in grassroots media literacy, storyteller training, and long-term behavioural change campaigns. 🌏 In the coming years, we will witness a growing wave of efforts to communicate climate change in new and compelling ways as climate becomes centre stage in policy and mainstream narratives. But the real test of these approaches won’t lie in international recognition or polished campaigns. It will lie in how meaningfully they resonate on the ground—in how a coal worker in Jharkhand or a landless labourer in Maharashtra understands, imagines, and navigates a world that is 1.5 degrees C warmer. 🔗 Read the piece here: https://lnkd.in/dGG8ZNZn A big thanks to Smruti Koppikar and Shobha Surin for trusting me with this piece. And of course, this would not be possible without Asar and all the fabulous work that I have got to be a part of in the last 3+ years! #ClimateCommunication #ClimateJustice

In the era of escalating planetary crises, the way we discuss climate change is just as important as the actions we take. As someone working at the intersection of advocacy, youth engagement, and climate justice, I often find myself in rooms filled with complex terminology like “NDCs,” “loss and damage,” “just transition,” and “resilience mechanisms.” While these terms resonate within policy circles, they often leave grassroots communities, youth, and local journalists behind. Climate science isn’t the problem; communicating it is. Despite the growing urgency, climate communication still struggles with jargon-heavy language, top-down narratives, and a lack of contextual sensitivity. Whether it's climate justice, adaptation policies, or carbon markets, messages often fail to reach the communities most affected. Too often, climate messages are designed for donors, diplomats, or data scientists, not for farmers, fishers, or frontline youth. This disconnect limits understanding and hinders action. That’s why I co-founded the Climate Communicators Community in Bangladesh with my friend Nayoka Martinez-Bäckström . Our goal? To bridge the gap between science, policy, and people by equipping a new generation of climate storytellers who can decode complexity, translate urgency, and amplify community voices. From climate journalism to strategic communications, from social media to policy briefs, Bangladesh needs a diverse, inclusive, and locally rooted communication ecosystem that can amplify the unheard voices from the frontline, influence policymakers, and share the Bangladeshi climate justice narrative on the global stage. We also need to embrace diverse platforms whether it’s TikTok, community radio, or local storytelling forums, to reach different audiences where they are. We’re building a space where young communicators, researchers, journalists, and activists can collaborate, experiment, and learn from each other. Because communication isn’t just a tool, it’s a frontline of climate justice. Here’s what we need instead: 🔹 Localisation of climate narratives, not just translating English to Bangla or another language/ dialects, but embedding messages in cultural, emotional, and community contexts. 🔹 Storytelling over statistics—people remember stories, not numbers. The tale of a family displaced by river erosion can convey climate impacts more powerfully than a temperature graph. 🔹 Dialogue over monologue—communication shouldn’t be top-down. Engaging communities in co-creating solutions can bridge trust and inspire action. 🔹 Reclaiming platforms—youth, frontline communities, Indigenous people, and climate-vulnerable groups must not only be “consulted” but empowered to communicate their own truths in their own words. I’m committed to reimagining climate communication from Gaibandha to Geneva to ensure the people most affected by the crisis are not just spoken about, but spoken with. #ClimateCommunication

🌍 Climate change isn’t about saving the planet. It’s about saving ourselves. The Earth has survived ice ages and extinctions. What’s at risk now is human life, dignity, and stability. In my recent article with the World Economic Forum, I argue that reframing climate change as a human problem makes it urgent and relatable. When the story shifts from “melting glaciers” to “our health, jobs, homes, and children,” people listen — and act. 🔑 A few reflections: ☝ Human systems — food, water, health, housing — are fragile and already under stress. ☝ People respond when the threat feels personal. Climate narratives must connect to everyday lives. ☝ Real solutions exist — from Bangladesh’s floating farms to community waste programs in India. These prove local, human-centred innovation works. ☝ Policy and investment must put people and justice at the core, not just carbon numbers. ✅ My call to action for all of us: ☝ Tell human stories. When we talk climate, don’t just show glaciers — show farmers, mothers, children, local innovators. ☝ Champion bottom-up solutions. Encourage approaches that emerge from communities, not just top-down mandates. ☝ Integrate climate into every field. Whether you’re in finance, tech, health, infrastructure — climate must be part of your lens. ☝ Be accountable and inclusive. Center those most affected — and ensure they have voice, agency and access to resources. Let’s stop thinking we’re “saving the Earth” for its own sake — the planet will continue (in some form). Let’s instead focus on saving ourselves, our communities, our futures. 💡Would love to hear your thoughts: What human climate narratives resonate most with you? Which local solutions inspire you? How do you integrate human-centred climate thinking into your work? 🔗 (https://lnkd.in/dQ7UiZUm) #ClimateAction #Sustainability #HumanCentered #NarrativeShift #FutureOfWork Avi Aggarwal Murchana Roychoudhury Global Shapers Community Bhavesh Swami The Climate Reality Project The Climate Reality Project - India & South Asia Dr. Sudipti Arora Anurag Maloo, FRSA, YGL vani murthy Solid Waste Management Roundtable ( SWMRT) TED Conferences The Better India YourStory Media

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.

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

For decades, we have been telling ourselves the same story about why people aren't doing more about our most pressing, urgent planetary issues. There's a gap. There's a barrier. There's a values-action mismatch. Fix the messaging. Wake people up. When that fails, try to inspire with awe and wonder. It was wrong 16 years ago when British sociologist Elizabeth Shove first called out the "attitude, behavior, choice" paradigm in her brilliant paper, "Beyond the ABC." It is still wrong now. Around that same time, I spent months in living rooms in Green Bay, Wisconsin, with people who live alongside a river that is both a Superfund site, and the place they learned to swim and fish with their families. The industries polluted the water and the air. The same industries also helped create a community and town that many people still have a lot of pride in. When I asked one former plant manager why he stayed in a place that on bad days made it hard to breathe, he laughed and said: "Why do coal miners keep going down that hole?" What looks like apathy or inaction almost never is. It is usually ambivalence. You cannot message your way through that. Not: "how do we make people care?" They already do, often more than they can bear. Instead: "how do we meet them in the bind they are already in?" Not: "what is the gap between values and action?" Instead: "what does it actually cost to confront the harm, and what would make that bearable?" That is the reframe. And it changes our work entirely. New piece on Becoming Guides-- link in comment below. #existentialpsychology #changemaking #changeleadership #climatechange #polycrisis

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

You are not alone! More than 8 out of 10 people in the world want stronger climate action, but we don’t realize we’re in the majority. Most of us, including yours truly, are a part of the “silenced majority” — 80-89% of the world’s people who want stronger climate action. But we don’t realize we’re a majority, partly because most news coverage doesn’t reflect this reality. Covering Climate Now provides insight into why this is. After a period of increased attention, climate coverage declined globally by 14% in 2025. In the US, major outlets including Washington Post, CBS News, and NBC News cut their climate teams, and the three broadcast networks reduced climate airtime by 35%. Notable exceptions exist, like The Guardian, The New York Times, AP, Bloomberg Green, and CNN, who continue more robust coverage, and journalists across the Global South generally still treat climate as a major story, since they’re on the frontlines of change. CCNow identified several causes for this decline in coverage. Climate stories are being crowded out by a relentless firehose of competing news: wars, protests, major political events. Newsroom staff cuts, driven by declining subscriptions and profit-focused corporate owners, have left remaining staff overwhelmed. Political leadership also shapes coverage, and the current US admin’s climate denial has emboldened others in business, politics and media to downplay the threat. Internal newsroom data consistently shows that audiences remain interested in climate, but they don’t want an endless stream of scientific studies. They want to know how the crisis can be fixed, including stories about solutions, human drama and hidden conflicts. The climate story is full of heroes, villains, money and human stakes, so there’s no shortage of stories to be told. Glad that Mongabay has been consistently reporting on this front, bringing stories and solutions from the frontlines of climate change to global audiences. Read CCNow's analysis here: https://lnkd.in/dyZwXsUB