How audiences respond to climate emergency messaging
Does crisis and emergency framing work during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Crisis and emergency framing—or messaging—on climate change is gaining traction. Oxford Languages named “climate emergency” its Oxford Word of the Year in 2019. More than 11,000 scientists issued a statement that year warning, “Earth is facing a climate emergency.”
The Biden-Harris administration’s revamped White House website features discussion of “swift action to tackle the climate emergency” among its priorities, along with COVID-19, racial equity and others.
Oxford Languages defines “climate emergency” as:
“a situation in which urgent action is required to reduce or halt climate change and avoid potentially irreversible environmental damage resulting from it.”
News outlets, notably the Guardian and the Associated Press, have updated their stylebooks. Language usage does not happen in a bubble. Credit for this growth can be traced, in part, to the #FridaysForFuture youth climate strike movement, which has organized several high-profile days of action.
Public opinion on the climate emergency
Now, the largest survey ever conducted on climate change opinion finds that nearly two-thirds (64%) of 1.2 million respondents, living in 50 countries, consider climate change to be a “global emergency.”
The survey from the UN Development Programme (UNDP), with researchers from the University of Oxford and nonprofit partners, used advertisements in popular mobile game apps in 17 languages to gauge international public opinion on climate change in six areas: energy, economy, transportation, farms and food, protecting people and nature.
The UNDP survey further found that the four most popular climate policies among respondents worldwide were: (1) Land and forest conservation (54% public support); (2) Solar, wind and renewable energy (53%); (3) Climate-friendly agriculture (52%); and (4) Investment in green businesses and job creation (50%).
The UNDP survey results are not an outlier. Research from the Yale and George Mason Universities finds that alarm among the adult U.S. public has grown in recent years. Research out of the UK, from the Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) center, finds concern about the climate crisis has gone up during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than declined.
How receptive are audiences to climate crisis or emergency framing?
In communication research, framing is the process of giving a specific aspect of a topic or issue emphasis, relative to other aspects. In other words, frames are “interpretive storylines” that help individuals make sense of an issue such as climate change. So, for example, on climate change frames can include: public health, climate justice, public accountability and governance, economics and social progress. For an overview, refer to this dated but useful discussion by Matthew C. Nisbet (Northeastern University) in the journal Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development.
The rise in popularity of “climate crisis” and “climate emergency” terminology raises questions on how audiences respond to these frames. There has been limited research on audience reception of this type of framing. I recently went digging through the academic, peer-reviewed scholarship on this question looking for data to share with my undergraduate climate change communication class.
The research to-date presents mixed findings. A small experimental study using a college student sample, published in 2013 in the journal Applied Environmental Education and Communication, found that the phrase “climatic disruption” performed better than “climate crisis.” The researchers, Larissa Jaskulsky and Richard Besel, tested four terms in a mock-up New York Times article: global warming, climate change, climate crisis and climatic disruption. They found evidence of backlash effects with the phrase “climate crisis”:
“In each of the areas where we discovered significance, the term ‘climate crisis’ performed the worst, meaning that use of this term leads to backlash effects of disbelief and reduced perceptions of concern most likely due to perceptions of exaggeration.”
On the other hand, the phrase “climate disruption” was most associated with a greater degree of agreement with statements such as: “Rising temperatures pose a serious threat to my way of life.” Interestingly, they did not find significant differences in participants’ perceptions of media as “too alarmist,” nor did they find differences in support for climate solutions and policies, between the test conditions.
A recent study, published in Nature Communications, examined climate crisis labelling effects using a 2019 telephone survey conducted in Taiwan. The researchers, Li-San Hung and Mucahid Mustafa Bayrak, compared “climate change” with “climate crisis” (chihouweiji in Chinese). They found similar reactions in the general public. However, crisis framing elicited backlash effects for specific sub-groups. Some of their findings:
Holding an individualist cultural worldview was associated with a lower mean frequency of discussing climate issues with “climate crisis” labelling.
People with a hierarchist cultural worldview had a lower mean sense of collective efficacy with “climate crisis” labelling.
In terms of gender differences, women reported higher mean behavioral intention to engage in mitigation behavior with the “climate crisis” label.
Men had a lower frequency of talking about climate issues with crisis labelling.
These results highlight the importance of tailoring climate change communications to your specific audience. As Hung and Bayrak write:
“[O]ur results on the labelling effects between the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘climate crisis’ might disappoint people such as scientists and climate change activists because the ‘climate crisis’ label might not help to change the public’s attitudes towards and engagement with climate change. Although we did find some positive labelling effects for specific subgroups, such as women, we also observed negative, backlash effects for other subgroups, such as people with hierarchical worldviews.”
Use “emergency” framing with caution during the COVID-19 pandemic
As the the COVID-19 pandemic continues to upend life around the planet into a second year, a key question is: How should advocates, the media, educators, politicians and others communicate the urgency of addressing climate change in these unprecedented times?
The UK-based Climate Outreach published a guide to communicating on climate change during the pandemic in May 2020. Their recommendations include:
Focus on building efficacy; the idea that there are actions individuals can take that will make a difference. Negative information about threats should be paired with information about ways people can take action.
Be sensitive to the challenges people and communities are facing. Know your audience and “get the timing right.”
Messages about the “fragility of society” may resonate better than climate emergency framing.
Rather than a narrative of “going back to normal,” messages about community resilience, stewardship and preparation can be more effective at reaching individuals with varying political beliefs.
When talking about the disproportionate burdens of climate change—as well as of the coronavirus pandemic—fairness framing can work across the political spectrum.
Readers: What are your reactions to “climate emergency” and “climate crisis” framing? What strategies have you used to communicate on climate issues during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Share you thoughts and reactions in the comments. I would love to hear from you.