Key Takeaways:
- The message and approach of many environmental groups isn't working and it needs to change...
- The message and approach of many environmental groups isn't working and it needs to change...
|
Taking the Moral High Ground- most people don't like it when environmentalist take the moral high ground. This doesn't need to be a moral argument, so lets avoid framing it as such.
|
|
Making People Feel Stupid- if we make people feel stupid for not being more informed, or having a different point of view, they are much less likely to want to engage.
|
|
Predicting the Future- even if we fix the emissions or degrees of warming, predicting the future is impossible. Climate change is an enormously complex issue in that regard, so if we say things that suggest we know with certainty how this plays out, it immediately undermines our credibility.
|
|
Anger & Frustration- it's easy to come across as overly passionate about this topic and letting frustration get the better of us can be off-putting to other people.
|
Material Type: Opinion Piece (Oli Strong- Founder)
Part of what we're trying to do is help people have more effective conversations around climate change, and if we want to improve engagement going forward, we think it's important to try and understand why it's been poor to date. We believe the reasons are split into three factors:
|
Communication Issues (issues in the way this topic has been communicated to date... see below)
|
|
Mixed/ Confusing Messages (including misinformation)
|
|
The Human Element (subconscious bias... why aren't we naturally more drawn to a topic that will likely be pivotal to our future success?)
|
Taking the Moral High Ground
Moral arguments can do more damage than good...
We’re not all saints, we’re kind of aware of it, but we don’t really like being reminded of it... which is why it’s irritating when someone takes the moral high ground. What makes it particularly annoying is that 99% of the time, you know that they’re not a saint either. There’s enough examples of celebrities preaching about social justice and climate change before jumping on their private jet.
Once a moral argument has rubbed someone up the wrong way, it makes it more difficult to get them to engage with the topic, which is the exact opposite of what we’re trying to achieve. The thing with climate change (unlike world poverty for example) is that this doesn’t need to be a moral argument, and we think that the fact it’s often presented as one is actually really damaging.
If I’m being honest, the moment I really started to do something about climate change was the moment I went “crap… I personally, am likely to significantly worse off if we cock this up”. Everyone else on this planet is in a similar boat and we think we should be trying to appeal to their best interests, rather than pinning hopes on how much they care about the interests of others.
The other thing with framing this as a moral argument is that it creates a false sense of security, and it encourages people to believe that they will be unaffected by climate change. Don’t get us wrong, people in low lying Bangladesh and the polar bears are being hit first and hardest, but this is still a big issue for everyone else.
In conclusion, despite there being a compelling moral argument, we believe the message should shift to “please get on board with this movement because, for all our sakes, we don’t want to facc this up”.
Moral arguments can do more damage than good...
We’re not all saints, we’re kind of aware of it, but we don’t really like being reminded of it... which is why it’s irritating when someone takes the moral high ground. What makes it particularly annoying is that 99% of the time, you know that they’re not a saint either. There’s enough examples of celebrities preaching about social justice and climate change before jumping on their private jet.
Once a moral argument has rubbed someone up the wrong way, it makes it more difficult to get them to engage with the topic, which is the exact opposite of what we’re trying to achieve. The thing with climate change (unlike world poverty for example) is that this doesn’t need to be a moral argument, and we think that the fact it’s often presented as one is actually really damaging.
If I’m being honest, the moment I really started to do something about climate change was the moment I went “crap… I personally, am likely to significantly worse off if we cock this up”. Everyone else on this planet is in a similar boat and we think we should be trying to appeal to their best interests, rather than pinning hopes on how much they care about the interests of others.
The other thing with framing this as a moral argument is that it creates a false sense of security, and it encourages people to believe that they will be unaffected by climate change. Don’t get us wrong, people in low lying Bangladesh and the polar bears are being hit first and hardest, but this is still a big issue for everyone else.
In conclusion, despite there being a compelling moral argument, we believe the message should shift to “please get on board with this movement because, for all our sakes, we don’t want to facc this up”.
Making People Feel Stupid
As climate activists we have to stop making people feel stupid for not being more informed around this topic. There are hundreds of millions of intelligent people, who aren’t taking this issue as seriously as they should be. I haven’t always passionately believed in resolving the problem, I cared the more I learnt about it.
Far too often the message comes across as “do you not see how serious this is you idiot” which is often born from frustration… Regardless of the cause, we’re confident that it’s not helpful when trying to get people to engage.
I’ve definitely let frustration get the better of me in the past (and I apologise in advance when it happens again) but I can relate to people on the receiving end. My brother, for example, has a knack for making you feel like a complete fool when he’s pulled out some obscure reference from Richard Head's Extended History of the Napoleonic Wars. If there’s one thing it doesn’t inspire me to do, it's read the book, and it’s exactly the same with climate change.
As climate activists we have to stop making people feel stupid for not being more informed around this topic. There are hundreds of millions of intelligent people, who aren’t taking this issue as seriously as they should be. I haven’t always passionately believed in resolving the problem, I cared the more I learnt about it.
Far too often the message comes across as “do you not see how serious this is you idiot” which is often born from frustration… Regardless of the cause, we’re confident that it’s not helpful when trying to get people to engage.
I’ve definitely let frustration get the better of me in the past (and I apologise in advance when it happens again) but I can relate to people on the receiving end. My brother, for example, has a knack for making you feel like a complete fool when he’s pulled out some obscure reference from Richard Head's Extended History of the Napoleonic Wars. If there’s one thing it doesn’t inspire me to do, it's read the book, and it’s exactly the same with climate change.
Predicting the Future
When we hear or see “billions of people are going to die” or “climate change means war” I think we do this subconscious thing where we’re like “you don’t know that for sure... and therefore, you are in my mind, an unreliable source of information and I shall discredit everything you are saying”.
As climate activists it’s important to be careful with our choice of words. Even if you fix the carbon emissions or the degrees of warming, trying to predict exactly how this plays out is nearly impossible. It’s an unbelievably complex issue in that regard and most people know that, so predicting outcomes with certainty can actually undermine confidence in the message and the messenger.
Using adverbs or phrases like “almost certainly” or “highly likely” means that you are acknowledging that uncertainty which stops people falling into that subconscious thinking trap.
On the flip side, it’s also important that we don’t use the level of uncertainty as an excuse to assume the best and carry on as normal, which would be inviting disaster (almost certainly according to the science… if we fail to transition quickly away from fossil fuels, it’s the degree that we’re unsure of).
We should aim to get a clear picture around a realistic best and worst case outcome as well as the likelihood of those scenarios so we can make informed decisions and act in our best interest… because as always, we don’t want to facc this up for ourselves.
When we hear or see “billions of people are going to die” or “climate change means war” I think we do this subconscious thing where we’re like “you don’t know that for sure... and therefore, you are in my mind, an unreliable source of information and I shall discredit everything you are saying”.
As climate activists it’s important to be careful with our choice of words. Even if you fix the carbon emissions or the degrees of warming, trying to predict exactly how this plays out is nearly impossible. It’s an unbelievably complex issue in that regard and most people know that, so predicting outcomes with certainty can actually undermine confidence in the message and the messenger.
Using adverbs or phrases like “almost certainly” or “highly likely” means that you are acknowledging that uncertainty which stops people falling into that subconscious thinking trap.
On the flip side, it’s also important that we don’t use the level of uncertainty as an excuse to assume the best and carry on as normal, which would be inviting disaster (almost certainly according to the science… if we fail to transition quickly away from fossil fuels, it’s the degree that we’re unsure of).
We should aim to get a clear picture around a realistic best and worst case outcome as well as the likelihood of those scenarios so we can make informed decisions and act in our best interest… because as always, we don’t want to facc this up for ourselves.
Anger & Frustration
I totally get the anger and frustration regarding the climate change issue. I occasionally get angry about this because as a “world collective” there’s a high probability on our current trajectory that we’re messing up my future, and it’s frustrating because it can be difficult to get people to recognise that we’re probably screwing up their future as well (assuming we continue to fall short of scientific advice).
Although there is a time and place for showing our emotion, letting our anger and frustration get the better of us can be counterproductive. For example, we’ve come to the controversial conclusion, that standing outside BP’s Head Office and calling everyone who comes out a “Twit”, isn’t the best way of getting them on board.
No matter your thoughts on them, groups like Extinction Rebellion have helped put climate change on the map, but we believe we need to move away from their more hard hitting tactics, which alienate many people, and move towards more reasoned discussion.
I’m also concerned that we may be alienating some of the people we need on board the most (i.e. the rich and powerful). For example, I can’t imagine world leaders were overly enamoured by Greta’s famous “How dare you?” speech.
For those of us that are passionate about this topic, it’s important that we make a conscious effort to control our emotions. Otherwise we risk people thinking “well I would look into the science, but I don’t want to turn out like you, so I’ll pass thanks”, which isn’t the result we’re after.
I totally get the anger and frustration regarding the climate change issue. I occasionally get angry about this because as a “world collective” there’s a high probability on our current trajectory that we’re messing up my future, and it’s frustrating because it can be difficult to get people to recognise that we’re probably screwing up their future as well (assuming we continue to fall short of scientific advice).
Although there is a time and place for showing our emotion, letting our anger and frustration get the better of us can be counterproductive. For example, we’ve come to the controversial conclusion, that standing outside BP’s Head Office and calling everyone who comes out a “Twit”, isn’t the best way of getting them on board.
No matter your thoughts on them, groups like Extinction Rebellion have helped put climate change on the map, but we believe we need to move away from their more hard hitting tactics, which alienate many people, and move towards more reasoned discussion.
I’m also concerned that we may be alienating some of the people we need on board the most (i.e. the rich and powerful). For example, I can’t imagine world leaders were overly enamoured by Greta’s famous “How dare you?” speech.
For those of us that are passionate about this topic, it’s important that we make a conscious effort to control our emotions. Otherwise we risk people thinking “well I would look into the science, but I don’t want to turn out like you, so I’ll pass thanks”, which isn’t the result we’re after.