Why climate communicators should talk less about the Paris Agreement.
Over and over again campaigners and scientists advocate for more climate action with statements such as "We must meet the goals of the Paris Agreement". In most cases, this is not the best option. Thread. 🔽
Over and over again campaigners and scientists advocate for more climate action with statements such as "We must meet the goals of the Paris Agreement". In most cases, this is not the best option. Thread. 🔽
Don't get me wrong. The Paris Agreement is, despite all flaws, a milestone. But: it is still a piece of paper, a treaty. Something very abstract for most people. The agreement itself hardly evokes any emotions, unless you have a very strong connection to it, like some activists.
But in order to mobilise people for climate justice and an ecological transformation, we have to get them emotionally involved. We need to tell them stories about what would happen if the climate collapse hits - and what we can win if we change our world in a climate-just way.
All this cannot be achieved by talking about a treaty. Let us rather talk about what the climate crisis really means: outside our own front door and on the other side of the world. And let's talk about how much more beautiful and desirable a climate-just world would be.
This does not mean that a reference to the obligation to fulfil contracts such as Paris can in some cases be a central element of our communication or sometimes an additional argument.
But for very few audiences it is the right main argument, the best core demand.
But for very few audiences it is the right main argument, the best core demand.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
