How should we communicate about climate change?
I am re-posting a post I shared with COMM 114 students last winter term...it warrants repeating here.
I am writing this from Bonn, Germany in March 2023 where I am participating in the 23rd Meeting of the Adaptation Committee (AC) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The AC members have been discussing the Committee's efforts to communicate about adaptation, both generally and about the work of the Adaptation Committee. I participated in this discussion, noting that a good communication effort involves four basic steps. First, what is the purpose and message of the communication - inform and educate, shared learning, joint problem solving? Second, who are the people involved - the audience(s) and the authors? Third, what is the process of and platform for communication - social media, face to face, mediated (e.g, you tube), blog, webinar, virtual? Fourth, what is the desired pproduct or outcome of the communication activity? These Ps - Purpose/Message, People/Audience/Author, Process/Platform, and Product/Outcome - can provide a framework for developing and implementing a climate change communication plan.
What should we communicate? How? For Whom? And Why? And how do we evaluate the impact of our communication efforts?
You might consider how we can communicate about climate change with our families, our friends, our co-workers, our neighbors...
I would argue that at the point, the purpose of any communication should be primarily education based, with perhaps some problem solving involved. The Audience is quite important, considering many people still disbelieve the science around climate change and consider it to be fake. Reaching out to these people is of utmost importance as it is extremely important to get a unified backing on this issue otherwise its possible little to no progress will be made. I don't necessarily believe that virtual or social platforms are the way to do this, as people often only search for or watch things aligning with their current views. Some type of in person setting with interactions seems like a superior method of persuasion for these people, as long as the setting can remain civil. The outcome? I suppose the best outcome would be to encourage action concerning climate change, but depending on the audience that may be a difficult goal. I would say at least educatting more people about the risks of climate change, especially on how it can and will affect them, is important and could lead to more positive change.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that it is important to reach out to the people who dont believe in climate change, as I believe that it is imperative we bridge these issues to make meaningful change in our policies. If we were to be less inflamitory towards eachother we would have the power to change the world, and be able to achieve joint problem solving.
DeleteProfessor Walker, your post from Bonn, Germany offers a valuable perspective on the complexities of communicating about climate change, especially within the framework of the Adaptation Committee's discussions. The four Ps you outlined - Purpose/Message, People/Audience/Author, Process/Platform, and Product/Outcome - indeed provide a comprehensive framework for developing a communication plan.
ReplyDeleteIn addressing the questions of what, how, for whom, and why we communicate about climate change, it's clear that understanding our purpose and tailoring the message to the audience is crucial. The variety of communication platforms available today, from social media to blogs and webinars, adds another layer of complexity, emphasizing the importance of selecting the right channel for our intended message.
Moreover, your mention of evaluating the impact of communication efforts is pivotal. As we navigate discussions about climate change, it's essential to assess whether our messages are driving awareness, inspiring action, or fostering shared learning.
I'm curious about your experiences in applying this framework in the context of the Adaptation Committee. How have these principles influenced the Committee's communication strategy, and what lessons can we draw for more grassroots communication, such as with our families and friends?
Lastly, thank you for re-sharing this post, as it underscores the timeless relevance of effective communication in addressing the urgent issue of climate change.
I believe that one of the pressing concerns about communication about climate change are the inherent political pull surrounding it. The first three of the Ps have been accounted for for many years, we have the Purpose, we have the People, and we have the Process. What we are lacking is the Product or outcome. I believe this to be because of the few voices who contradict the information being given having a platform and pedestal on that platform. They are spreading misinformation and it is being projected to these few who want there to be conflict. Than we as the people give these conflict seekers more platform and space to spread there untrue ideals. this lead me to thinking that the question of how do we educate on climate change is providing more Argument 1, of telling , and less Argument 2, of debating. This is because this debating feeds these conflict seekers and makes them more stuck in there ways when we acknowledge them.
ReplyDeleteEffective communication is critical in solving the climate catastrophe, and your framework—which includes People/Audience/Author, Process/Platform, Product/Outcome, and Purpose/Message—is thorough. It's critical to adapt messaging on climate change to a variety of audiences while taking cultural, social, and economic circumstances into account. A wider audience may relate when practical effects on everyday life, health, and financial security are highlighted. Reaching diverse populations is ensured by making use of a variety of venues, such as social media, neighborhood gatherings, and educational initiatives. Engagement and ownership are fostered by collaborative techniques that promote shared learning and cooperative problem-solving. Key markers for evaluating effect include tracking changes in behavior, public comprehension, and policy advocacy. Last but not least, humanizing the problem and encouraging group action may be achieved by including personal narratives into the communication plan. Framing climate change as a shared duty linked to human well-being and future generations may raise awareness and spur positive change in talks with family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of communication in this regard is to express ideas and inform everyone on the actual issue. In this topic the more voices, the more ideas, the more opinions the better. When there are just two polarized opinions that you either have to be for or against in talks of climate change that does not promote change or compromise. You need the conversation to happen to truly want to make change. The desired audience of this communication is the young people of the world. The people who it will affect the most. The most likely and preferred medium of communication will be online. A wider medium of communication though will generate the most change. With actual face to face conversations and engagement into ideas online producing actual sharing of ideas. In this regard we shouldn't measure the impact of the conversation in terms of if their minds being changed. We should mostly just measure our impact in the way of informing them and letting them make up their mind on the topic and not try to force it upon them.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a bad example is overly technical material. It can be hard to balance providing scientific fact while also not being overlly technical and full of jargon. In spite of this, if you have a technical audience, it can be useful. Technical jargon exists for a reason. This article: https://sinews.siam.org/Details-Page/modeling-permafrost-soil-ice-and-some-really-hard-mathematics, is very technical, however I can provide great insight into the devastating impacts of even mild climate change.
ReplyDeleteI see a lot of climate denial online, and I also see many people ridiculing the deniers. I do not think the is the right approach. If they are ridiculed they won't be open to our point of view. The best bet for communication is to educate in a non demeaning way, some see us as the enemy, and being nasty only would confirm that to them.
ReplyDelete