Thread by @SteveAkehurst

I really don’t agree with this.

It’s not the right combination of words lacking. Voters already get the threat of climate change.

IMO it’s the infrastructure with which to get that story heard by people consistently.

(yes sorry it’s a 🧵)

theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

In wankier terms, the issue is not sympathy but salience.

The extent to which people think climate a problem and want action is now consistently high (left).

The degree to which it’s a priority ebs and flows far more (right).

This is an issue because it’s salience which drives voting behaviour, civic action and what issues people change consumer behaviour in aid of.

It’s also salience which makes us more willing to bear cost/inconvenience in pursuit of a policy goal.

What effects salience? Yes values but also, when you analyse it, it’s…news coverage of climate.

*Especially* that driven by extreme weather.

But that’s not happening all the time, not yet anyhow.

Thus all the other stuff people have to worry about dominates instead.

So really the job here is finding new ways of keeping climate in the news + culture *that regular people consume*.

Fewer big NGOs than you think have this as a core mission.

Which is not a criticism. Most are set up to influence elites, not to talk to swing voters. Rightly!

There’s one other reason it doesn’t happen btw: it’s really hard.

Persuasion of less engaged voters requires ruthless mission focus, creativity, persistence. And it needs long term money.

This is where Freedland is right: the fossil fuel industry have all that in abundance.

Anyway, all this is why IMO any far sighted UK funder should be throwing money at persuasion infrastructure not more messaging research.

One eg: @Roger_Harding’s excellent new initiative dedicated solely to bringing climate stories to ordinary voters.

roundourway.org