Whatever you think about the Cancun Agreements, there's no doubt that the climate movement needs to up its game in 2011. Pledges currently on the table will only take us about halfway to the kind of future any of us would want to bequeath to our children and grandchildren. Most importantly, we need to think about how to ignite stronger public support for climate action in a range of countries.
I had the wonderful opportunity in Cancun to participate in a panel discussion with Ted Turner, Philippe Cousteau and others on communicating climate change to the public. Based on my own international campaign experience (going on 30 years), I would argue that there are some fundamental approaches to communications which transcends cultural or national boundaries.
Simply put, effective communication strategies must meet the following criteria:
1. They're not just media plans. They use a wide range of communication channels which mutually reinforce each other, and in addition to traditional media, they aim to reach the public through direct communication, social media and viral video, print & web ad placement, public events, and popular media channels like film, television and music.
2. They're multi-sensory and emotionally engaging. The more senses stimulated, the more powerful the results. This is why images have the power to communicate what the written word alone does not, and why music has historically had such an important place in the anti-war and civil rights movements of decades past.
3. They tell a Story. We still live in a story telling culture. Events and narratives described in a story format are far more compelling and engaging than the recitation of arguments and facts. According to Drew Westen in his mind-blowing book, The Political Brain:
Research suggests that our minds naturally search for stories with a particular kind of structure, readily recognizable to elementary school children, and similar across cultures. A coherent story has an initial state or setting ("Once upon a time..."), protagonists, a problem that sets up what will be the central plot or storyline, obstacles that stand in the way, often a clash between the protagonists trying to solve the problem and those who stand in their way or fail to help, and a denouement, in which the problem is ultimately resolved ("And they lived happily ever after").
4. They have a simple message. A communications strategy is about what is sent, received and understood. The more complicated the story, the more likely it is to get mangled as it gets translated across different media. This will be familiar to anyone who played "telephone" or "Chinese whispers" as a child. People are far more likely to remember and be moved by a powerful principled stance than by detailed policy positions -- by metaphor more than by numbers.
5. They are strategic and targeted. Campaigners must get better at pinpointing key decision-makers and what mostly directly influences them. We need to get inside their heads, and start from where they are, not from where we think they should be. We need to understand their values, motivations, behaviors and attitudes and tell the story in ways they can relate to. People tend to listen to those they perceive as being like them, people who share their values and concerns -- the messenger is as important as the message. And we need to think more clearly about where they get their information. Are they reading The Nation or Garden & Gun?
6. They foster a dialogue and invite public participation. Speaking on behalf of the public is no longer sufficient. When decision-makers hear from the public directly they are far more likely to act. A good communications strategy will empower the public by linking the public directly to the people who can fix the problem. Avaaz for example, is founded on this principle and not surprisingly is growing by leaps and bounds.
Others have written their own campaign guidelines but I would encourage people to share their advice and experience in the comments below. What do you think is the best way to see a breakthrough in the way we communicate and campaign about the complex issue of climate change? Leave your comments below!
Follow Kelly Rigg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kellyrigg
there are two books on how to do the lobbying that we have produced which might interest the readers.
One is free downloadable called Negotiating and Implementing Multilateral Environmental Agreements which we did with UN Environment Programme (downloadable from www.stakeholderforum.org ) and a more funny guide called How to lobby at Intergovernmental meetings -- Mine is a Cafe Latte published by Earthscan.
warm regards
felix dodds
Stakeholder Forum
(follow Rio+20 at www.earthsummit2012.org )
Did anyone express concern for winter snowfalls in New York that might be the heaviest in decades?
Did anyone express concern for the lack of investment in infrastructure to adapt to harsh winter weather in Northern Europe? Did anyone worry about the lack of adequate equipment and supplies at airports, to keep them open and operating during the winter months?
Of what relevance is Cancun to people around the world who are struggling to contend with the severe weather events of 2010/2011? Of what relevance are the individuals who chose to party in Cansun while the rest of the world struggled with economic and weather problems?
Can scientists become "Deadly Ninjas of Science Communication"? That was proposed by Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War Against Science," and a member of the board of directors of the American Geophysical Union. Mooney advocated this idea in a presentation at the Union's December 13-17 fall meeting in San Francisco.
Mooney is concerned that global warming skeptics are getting the upper hand in the ongoing debate. Mooney has an unquestioning belief that disaster will overtake the world if we don't mend our CO2-emitting ways. Many other speakers at the meeting, like Mooney, suggested that if scientists improved their communications skills, the skeptics could be defeated.....
Bringing a bit more democracy into the way 'big NGOs' are run would probably help them ALL to grow by leaps and bounds like Avaaz.
I think that offering ways for supporters to actually get 'involved' is pretty crucial too. Not just ways to 'ignite their support' for an issue by using clever messaging. Where is the local group they can get involved in? How can they train, and become campaigners and advocates themselves, actually *applying* political pressure, instead of just people who 'politically support' the issue?
http://climatepirate.com/chicken-little-comes-home-to-roost-another-way-media-may-fail-us-on-climate-change/
How to work around the problem? I have no answers and I'd love to get feedback about it.
The battle starts again as soon as I woke up by the next bang caused by the wind, or hear the water flowing in the stairs and down on the kitchen floor. I fight, someday the rain will stop, the wind will be calm until then I need to fight, to keep dry, to keep sane, to feel that I'm doing something.
I'm not alone, the neighbours are doing the same battle, in their houses, what to do I ask them? Mop the floor they say, that is the only thing we can do. The battle is strange, we all fight the same battle, on different locations, but not as an army, but for ourselves. The army force is that we are all in this together and that makes my own battle a lot easier and thats why I keep fighting.
Climate change has been the cause of almost everything, from Tiger Woods losing a U.S. Open, to acne in monkeys, to more snow or less snow, or more rain or less rain. The public has been peppered with this indefensible nonsense for years and years, to the point where any new claim is only food for jokes and satire.
Yet how many CAGW supporters have ever spoken out against this immeasurable, insufferable, and unforgivable pile of propaganda?
The public gets it. It is all propaganda.
It involves the little recognized threat of solar flares and can attract wide support once understoodÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ.
See Green Light, and other articles at: www.aesopiÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂnÂsÂtÂiÂÂtÂÂuÂÂtÂÂeÂÂÂ.ÂÂÂoÂÂÂÂrÂg for an outline of the potential problem and a few surprising ways it might be addressed.
We are at the edge of both a climate disaster and a new age of low-cost, decentraliÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂzÂeÂd energy.
If we are quick enough to accelerate radically new science and technologyÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ, there is still time to avoid the worst.
The most important technology is out-of-theÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ-ÂbÂoÂx and needs independenÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂt laboratory validation before it will gain acceptance by most scientistsÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ.
But, there is a possibilitÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂy that revolutionÂÂÂÂÂÂary, cost-compeÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂtÂiÂtÂiÂÂvÂÂe, products that provide electricitÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂy will enter the market in 2011.
IronicallyÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ, a truly adequate initiative to maximize the probabilitÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂy of that prospect could provide large numbers of jobs and help revive the economy.
The difficult is sometimes done immediatelÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂyÂ. The seemingly impossible may surprise many skeptics and take just a little longer.
Work emerging from laboratoriÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂeÂs all over the planet suggests that will prove accurate.
Cost-compeÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂtÂiÂtÂiÂÂvÂÂe alternativÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂeÂs will be the most realistic way to end the need for carbon fuels.
We can see that they do!
With a determined effort, future cars can become power plants when parked, selling electricitÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂy to pay for themselvesÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ.
These new possibilitÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂies may even interest Ted Turner. Why not find out?
I’d never viewed a climate bl0g pre-climategate, yet somehow even I was aware of the impending: melting glaciers, disappearing Amazon, extinction of polar bears, rising sea levels, increased frequency and strength of hurricanes, acidification of the oceans, disappearance of coral reefs, each year seemingly being the hottest year ever….
Climate policy advocates did not fail to get their message out, the populace was inundated by it for years. The problem is that their message was music to the ears of progressive politicians eager to assume massive control over, and impose massive taxes on, the general economy. Their message was less persuasive to those poor simpletons who would have to suffer that control, and pay those taxes.
comment by GaryB at Climate, etc.