Our biggest obstacle is not polarization–it’s distribution

There can be a tone of defeat that often accompanies discussions of political polarization. The two sides act like headbutting rams, locked into their perspectives, and, especially on the topic of climate change, the prevalence of disinformation makes it all but impossible to engage the “opposing side.” So goes the conventional wisdom.

Yet much of what’s perceived as climate polarization stems from gaps in communication rather than ideology, showing how strategic outreach and shared narratives can rebuild common ground.

What happens, though, when someone who currently believes disinformation is confronted with a powerful message about climate change?

Does their belief in disinformation shut them down to reality?
Or can salient messages still move them?
We did an experiment to find out.

As climate disinformation continues to spread across media and social platforms, understanding how to counter its influence has become essential to any effective communication strategy.

Can you turn disinformation-believers into climate supporters?

In December of last year, we ran a two-part experiment to understand, first, what is the real extent of disinformation among Americans? And second, can those who believe disinformation be moved by climate messages?

Are disinformation-believers a staunch opposition permanently closed off to our appeals? Or can we, with the right narrative, convince even them?

The answers will surprise you.

A staggering level of belief in disinformation

First things first, we tested eight statements of disinformation, three of which were related to climate change. We found surprisingly high levels of belief. For example, a majority of Republicans believed hurricane relief funding was misused to benefit illegal immigrants. 37% believe that people have been eating cats and dogs. Disinformation really is a pervasive problem and daunting obstacle to action.

Disinformation isn’t getting any quieter. In January, prominent national leaders were blaming the California wildfires on DEI–a message that reached far and wide.

Can disinformation-believers be moved to support climate action?

We next tested: how does belief in disinformation impact someone’s receptivity to more emotionally resonant (and truthful!) climate change narratives?

In Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), we exposed disinformation-believers to one of three narratives about the need for action on climate change (one narrative emphasized the risks of extreme weather, one the benefits of clean energy, and one the need to protect the people, places, and pastimes we love).

We then compared the levels of “strong support for immediate government action on climate change” between the groups exposed to a climate message and a control group (a group of disinformation-believers who saw no climate message).

The results surprised and energized us: every single pro-climate narrative increased the levels of support for climate action among disinformation believers, on average by 11 percentage points.* There wasn’t some built-in, fervent, immovable opposition; even disinformation-believers were persuadable. What one would expect based on conventional wisdom is backlash–a decrease in support after exposure to a pro-climate message. (This is what one often sees with other social issues like abortion and gun control.) But instead we see growth.

These findings highlight how effective messaging can cut through the noise of climate polarization, helping audiences reconnect around shared facts and common values.

That’s Interesting: What we have is a distribution gap.

What these results imply is a major opportunity in reaching these audiences with salient and non-polarizing climate change messages.

Rather than an entrenched oppositional audience, disinformation-believers are actually moveable. But today, they’re often living in media bubbles where they don’t receive accurate information on the issue. The opposition wins when we don’t show up.

The gap we’re facing isn’t that our messages don’t move these people – it’s that our channels don’t reach them. This is a consistent finding we see at Potential Energy. Our major challenge is simply that we do not have enough climate messaging. Together, we need to close this distribution gap. Nurture new voices, find more spokespeople and more culture carriers (yes, including podcasters) who can frame and deliver relevant climate change messages in new channels to people currently being seduced by dangerous disinformation.