Don’t chicken out on “climate”.

What the data says about using “climate change” in messaging

The question currently on top of many minds in the climate change community is quite fundamental: Should we still say “climate change”?

Have the dynamics changed so much that the most expedient path to progress is through the “side door,” to sell the benefits of the transition with a different “why” than stopping climate change? If you’re looking to boost support for clean energy, is “climate change” so poisoned by partisanship that its mere utterance cuts your potential support by half?

National government directives make the question more pressing, but the underlying concern is not necessarily new. Climate communicators have long wondered if we could broaden support by making the case that clean energy is an economic boon for local communities, that the technology is newer and cooler, that it reduces our dependence on foreign oil, that it makes us a leader in a growing industry, that it lowers energy costs, or that it creates more jobs. All of these “side door” arguments are valid and important – and certainly come with less “baggage.”

So, when trying to engender support for climate change solutions, is it better to go through a “side door”?

We looked back on five years of data (with a sample size of over half a million people) and also conducted new research to capture the sentiments of the current moment to find the answer.*

This research also helps clarify when a direct climate change narrative is most effective and when alternative approaches fall short.

That’s Interesting.

We won’t bury the lede: When your goal is to broadly increase support for action, “front door” messages – messages that put the damages of climate change front and center – consistently outperform “side door” messages.

To be clear, growth and jobs can be valuable messages for preserving local progress on clean energy projects, creating the political conditions for success, and building coalitions with stakeholders beyond the climate movement. But if the goal is to foster an environment where “bigger and bolder solutions” are no-brainers, where public backing for climate action is broad and enduring, “front door messages” work best.

Looking back through years of testing against half a million Americans, we divided the messages into two groups: “climate” frames, which focus on the consequences of an overheating planet, and “clean energy” frames, which focus on the broad benefits of a clean future. The answer was clear: climate messages had a greater impact on support for clean energy than clean energy messages alone.

Big changes need a big “why.” Climate change communicators have one. It’s not the benefits of a new heat pump. It’s that we must save the things we love.

What the data says we should do.

If climate change messages perform so well, then why isn’t climate change a higher priority for more Americans? The problem, primarily, is one of relevance.

From a public opinion perspective, the issue is less that there is a staunch, immovable opposition or that people have strongly held, polarized views. The issue is that they’re not thinking about it at all – much less are they truly informed on it.

Our research shows that well-crafted climate narratives can break through this gap in relevance, helping people connect the issue to their daily lives and personal stakes.

In contrast to the hypothesis that saying “climate change” might instantly alienate a certain audience, we found that the top-performing messages (which did say “climate change”) increased support for climate action with everyone, even those who actively believe disinformation, like “hurricane relief funding was misused to benefit illegal immigrants.”

How can we break through the noise to make it relevant? After studying the top-performing messages, three paths become clear.

1. Raise the stakes. Make it matter, at this moment, by asking “what is worth protecting?”

Analyzing our “climate” messages a different way, we found that loss frames outperformed gain frames to the tune of three to one. Loss frames win by creating real urgency.

2. Land it at the kitchen table. Make it vividly personal instead of speaking in concepts.

Slicing the data a different way showed that frames centering today’s destruction outperformed those promising economic savings. Unfortunately for clean energy, financial promises don’t yet feel real; emphasizing the impact today was twice as effective at lifting support for action.

Eight of our top ten messages are about the impacts of extreme weather on real people. A family that can’t return to their favorite camp spot. A couple that can’t visit their most treasured spot on the beach.

3. Place the blame. Concentrate the locus of accountability on the biggest polluters, not the people.

People are motivated by the unfairness of fossil fuel impacts. This can be five times more effective at driving support for climate action than a message focusing on individual behavior change (the changes we can all make in our daily lives to make an impact).

These findings reinforce how climate narratives grounded in personal stakes and fairness can drive meaningful shifts in support across audiences.

The key takeaway: Don’t chicken out on “climate”.

Great marketing needs a big “why.” We have one. The personal and material costs of the consequences of climate change, plus the unfairness of big polluters’ profiting off of everyday people’s pain, are motivating across the aisle.

When we land personally relevant narratives, we win. And while the world has changed a lot in the last few months, the data says the most motivating reason to support climate action remains the urgent need to protect the people and places we love.

In case you missed it, Our Science Moms brand was incredibly fortunate to recently receive a generous donation, allowing us to run one of Potential Energy’s best performing ads – “By The Time” – at the Super Bowl! It’s the ad that most convincingly makes the case for the “big why,” and we were so grateful it got such a big stage.

*Methodology Note: