Thread by @DoctorVive

If this is how @SpeakerPelosi and @TheDemocrats are going to message climate change—"framed" or *hidden behind marginal issues like "habitat" or "clean air, clean water" or even "health" or "morals"—we are going to get KILLED once the fight begins.

THREAD

I know these "frames" poll well in focus groups. But in the field they are ineffective, as experience has shown time and time again.

They are ineffective because they are *decontextualized*. They fail to account for political opposition and the effects of disinformation.

2/n

Even selling climate action as a jobs creator, while powerful in political campaigns (which are largely won and lost on promises of increasing prosperity), will fail once the policy fight begins.

Why?

Again, because it fails to account for opposition and disinformation.

3/n

Further, a single-pronged message is weak, able to be swept aside by the coordinated blitz dropped by GOP politicians and right-wing media once the policy fights begin.

Effective climate messaging is three-pronged, like a stool that supports a platform.

4/n

First: it tells local & human-centered stories that highlight the dangers of climate change on our communities (rural, urban, white, Black, etc). It illustrates that there is a THREAT that America must face.

Great movements in politics are in part about triumph over threat.

5/n

Then, it makes it clear that the GOP is FAILING TO MEET THE THREAT of climate change. Indeed, that *it's making it worse.*

We need to draw the lines of battle, clearly, and show how, as they have let us down on Covid, the GOP is letting Americans down on climate.

6/n

Finally, we need to provide a vision that people can get excited about. This is where job-creation comes in—but the promise of job creation is not enough. Not everybody needs a new job.

7/n

We need to articulate a vision of how climate action will rebuild our economy in a way that will make the majority of Americans more prosperous (not with growth but with fairness) and make our children safe. This is a "morning in America" vision, not just a matter of jobs.

8/n

As part of that vision we need to debunk the threat that acting on climate will "cost" Americans money they don't have. This is perhaps the most crucial element of climate messaging.

9/n

I'm working on that (ha ha) and I'm not ready to launch yet, but I will say that the message cannot just compare the cost of action to the cost of doing nothing, because 1) the cost of action is now, but the cost of inaction is later and 2) people feels costs personally.

10/n

So, again, a three-pronged story (tailored to local markets):

threats
antagonists
inspiration

to attempt to create

worry/fear
outrage/mobilization
hope/desire

11/n

I have a research paper coming out soon that takes an interdisciplinary approach, using sociology, psychology, and literary theory, to develop this form for the content of climate messages.

I am in the process of focus-grouping these forms for empirical data.

12/n

There is obvs nothing proprietary about this work, though, so I invite @TheDemocrats @StefFeldman @ClimatePower @EvergreenAction etc etc etc to take whatever seems useful and leave the rest.

13/n

Original screenshot taken from here.

/fin

eenews.net/climatewire/20…

ps @sunrisemvmt already talks like this

and pps IMHO "climate messaging" is not about getting the public to "care" about climate change; it's about making sure the voters who are *already* concerned about climate change recognize they're in a political fight for their lives and commit to staying in the fight...

even if Republican/fossil-fuel disinformation tries to make them believe they'll be hurt by the passing of climate policy.