For me, climate change really became tangible in 1994, when I experienced my first blizzard as a child. Those were snowy days and stormy nights. So stormy that my sister and I were afraid to sleep, afraid of being swept away by the icy wind. It wasn’t the first or last blizzard in Michigan history, but just days later we learned that a childhood friend was no longer alive, and I had to come to terms with the fact that weather can kill people.
But whether it’s blizzards in the winter, hurricanes in the fall, or droughts in the summer, weather extremes are becoming more frequent and more extreme. Many climate scientists are aware that this change is unstoppable. In the long term, 55 degrees Celsius in Death Valley will not be uncommon, nor will 46 degrees in southern Italy or 49 degrees in Tunis. Globally, July 2023 was the warmest summer on record since measurements began in 1880 – perhaps even the warmest in tens of thousands of years (this has yet to be evaluated).
Paradoxical distance
Yet for many people, the climate crisis seems distant. Psychological research suggests that misguided communication is a major contributor to this paradox. The way politicians, journalists, and experts talk about the climate crisis does not resonate with many people. They do not see climate change as an urgent problem – despite all the available information about how serious it will be – and prefer to focus their attention on other issues. Behind this are psychological mechanisms that prevent us from doing what would be necessary from a rational point of view. With the help of scientific evidence, it is possible to talk about the effects of climate change in a way that can trigger a change in thinking.
You may have encountered people in your personal circle who are difficult to talk to about the climate crisis in person. For example, through my research I have come into contact with many people who are passionate about gardening, active in their local community, and who say that climate action is important to them. But at the same time, many believe that the climate movement is exaggerating and that the policies that have been put in place will solve the problem.
In a study, my team and I wanted to know what makes people feel emotionally distant from a topic and therefore less interested in it. We call this psychological distance. It has four dimensions:
- Physical distance (only relevant for people in other locations)
- Temporal distance (only significant in the future)
- Social distance (only affects people who are different from you)
- the experienced uncertainty
New research shows that Americans and Europeans are equally distanced from the climate crisis. This psychological distance is particularly pronounced in the US states of Florida, Texas and South Carolina. In Europe, Italians, British, French and Germans are particularly “blessed” with psychological distance.
The fact that the occurrence and extent of climate change are perceived as uncertain is also related to academic language. Research shows that lay people understand the probability statements in reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) quite differently than the researchers intend. For the latter, scientific uncertainty is normal; it is good form to list what has not yet been considered in a study and what is questionable. In everyday life, however, the term uncertainty has a different meaning. This can give the impression that one cannot trust the results.
A linguistic analysis shows that the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are even more cryptic than other technical publications. Yet they claim to be audience-friendly and policy-relevant, but not policy-prescriptive. Communication therefore needs to become more understandable. To do this, it is important to reduce the amount of information to a cognitively manageable level, while ensuring that everything worth knowing is present (ideally 7 pieces of information, as these can at most spill over from working memory into long-term memory),
Fear can paralyze
The immense complexity of the climate system, with its non-linear dynamics and tipping points, also complicates the exchange. Especially when we are dealing with a multitude of interconnected factors, novel problems and dynamic systems, we are prone to make mistakes in our thinking and decision-making. Therefore, I caution against overestimating the ability of humans to control geoengineering. Geoengineering refers to large-scale technical interventions in the Earth’s geochemical or biogeochemical cycles with the aim of mitigating global warming.
My team and I have thoroughly analyzed and evaluated the findings and reports on climate communication published over the past years and decades and have identified four psychological barriers that prevent us humans from taking action.
- Psychological distance, which says that you (probably) have no influence on people like me and my region, and consequently leads to disinterest and avoidance of the topic
- Strong fear paralyzes people and prevents them from initiating change. True to the motto “I can’t do anything anyway,” people avoid and doubt the information that threatens them. At the same time, they look for “rational” reasons for their less than rational behavior and like to pass the responsibility to others.
- Cognitive dissonance makes us try to justify our behavior to others. On the one hand, this means that people like to ignore scientific information from others that does not fit with their own thinking or actions. On the other hand, they justify their behavior by saying that “others also produce plastic waste” in order to escape the uncomfortable feeling that sits in their subconscious.
- Social dissonance ensures that we align our thoughts and actions with the people (groups) to which we belong or want to belong. This means that we do not want to lose our social status and thus our friends and family. People also want to protect their self-esteem and strengthen their identity. To do this, they justify their behavior and that of their social group.
These psychological barriers can cause someone to deny anthropogenic or man-made global warming (despite the scientific consensus). Who tends to do this? To answer this question, a team of Australian researchers analyzed some 25 surveys and 171 studies from a total of 56 countries. The result: People who identify with conservative political parties and who value free market, hierarchical and individualistic values are more likely to doubt climate change. On the other hand, education, gender and personal experience with extreme weather events do not play a major role.
Overall, a person’s views on global warming are only weakly related to the extent of their pro-environmental behavior. In my opinion, this makes it all the more important to talk about the crisis in a way that touches people and motivates them to act. Effective communication is based on an understanding of the audience, a basic knowledge of the climate, and a target-group-specific approach.
Four mindsets in climate communication
| Dont’s | Do’s |
|---|---|
| More information can lead to action | A sense of self-efficacy and a concrete plan of action encourage action. |
| Stoking fears can spur climate action | Positive emotions such as joy and hope motivate |
| We can reach everyone with the same arguments | We need individualized communication based on what values are important to the other person and how he or she has been involved in climate action. |
| Using television and social media to mobilize people | Climate communication works best in face-to-face conversations |
Gap between knowledge and action
This is especially true when you are talking to someone one-on-one about the climate crisis and want to change their mind and initiate change. It is important to do as little damage as possible to the other person’s self-esteem and need for consistency, control, competence, and autonomy. Of course you can disagree with a point of view – but please do so respectfully. Acknowledge when the other person’s arguments and views are logical and understandable. A safe and comfortable atmosphere encourages the willingness to step outside the comfort zone and consider threatening new information, even if it causes fear and anxiety. Only by listening and responding to each other can perspectives be broadened. All of this happens much better through personal dialogue than through mass media.
A solid basic knowledge of human-induced climate change and its impacts is a second foundation for effective climate communication. It is not necessary (nor possible) to understand all the complexities involved or to have an informed answer to every question. In fact, it can be comfortable to admit gaps in your knowledge and exchange views on the issues that concern you.
It used to be thought that people didn’t do enough about climate change because they didn’t know enough about it. This assumption is now outdated, as studies show. Rather, it is the nature of the knowledge that matters. Even motivated people are not clear about what they should do. Knowledge about what can be done about the climate crisis (so-called action knowledge) and which strategies are particularly effective (effectiveness knowledge) is therefore much more important than details about the problem.
People who are in favor of climate protection, but see it as far less bad than it is, rarely feel affected by the climate crisis themselves, in part because the information about it is rarely tailored to them. To reduce the psychological distance to the topic, individually tailored communication can help, which takes into account which values are important to the other person and to what extent he or she is already committed to climate protection. The model of self-regulated behavior change can be useful here. According to this model, people first develop intentions for a goal, then for a specific behavior, and later for concrete implementation. Depending on the stage, a person will respond positively to different types of support.
The first step is to make it clear to these people that climate protection should be a central concern for them. They can use it to protect what is important to them. They can be helped to develop a sense of responsibility and to recognize the risks of the crisis for themselves and their environment.
How does this concern me?
For example, in a conversation with the other person, you can point out how the climate crisis threatens their health, their children’s quality of life, their beloved garden, and their prosperity. You can also point to principles like justice and humanity. Last but not least, if a social group that the person cares about is already involved, it can provide additional motivation. But you can also reach out to people who already care about climate change and show them how they can reduce their footprint (e.g., by eating less meat, switching from car to public transportation or bicycling) or increase their handprint (e.g., by getting involved in political organizations).
There may also be a feeling that climate action is difficult to implement or that the costs outweigh the benefits. In this case, the two can be weighed against each other (based on the values that are important to the other person) and it can be worked out what is possible and what will have the greatest impact. For example, if a person does not like or cannot give up his or her car, he or she can try to become a vegetarian or join an environmental group.
In general, personal stories are much more tangible than mere numbers, such as witnessing the melting of glaciers, friends narrowly escaping an avalanche while skiing, or, as recently, a huge forest fire on Rhodes and its immediate aftermath. Knowing exactly which countries and communities are affected (and in fact every country on the planet is affected by climate change) reduces the psychological distance. You can also generate ideas and imagine a world where we have found solutions to the problem. Finally, positive emotions are more motivating than negative ones.
Many people are already taking action to protect the environment in a variety of ways: eating a mostly vegetarian or even vegan diet, riding a bike or using public transportation, buying green electricity, getting involved in climate movements, or showing solidarity with victims of flood or fire disasters. But the more we get involved, the more we become aware of the limits of our own actions. After all, many bad habits can be traced back to the fact that our environment still often encourages us to behave in ways that harm the climate.
One way is to actively redesign the environment. For example, by making it faster, easier and less complicated to get to work by bike, bus or train than by car. Or by placing environmentally friendly products at head height in the supermarket, labeling them with a climate traffic light, and taxing climate-damaging products with a CO2 levy. Nudging is the name given to such psychologically based measures to change the environment in order to outwit people’s comfort and persuade them to behave in a desired way. Of course, citizens need to be involved to avoid ethical concerns.
Conversations about climate change that take place in an atmosphere of appreciation and respect for each other’s needs, goals, and values have the potential to bring the climate crisis where it belongs: into the living rooms, classrooms, offices, and parliaments of the world.