As in much of the world, climate progress in the U.S. faces significant challenges. Since 2025, federal actions have moved to halt a much-needed source of renewable energy in wind power, pull the U.S. out of key international agreements and working groups, and roll back billions of dollars in funding for climate projects across the United States.
Though the political approach to climate is increasingly partisan, the effects of federal policy actions, and climate change in general, do not obey partisan lines. Indeed, typically Republican-voting ‘red’ states are more threatened by effects of climate change, such as worsened flooding, hurricanes, and heat, than their Democratic-voting counterparts, particularly in the Southeast.
(Chart accessible from Statista)
Why, then, is climate change so politicized? The answer is complicated, and one part of that complexity is communication.
Climate Change is Political
In his 2012 working paper (which later became a book), University of Michigan business professor Andrew Hoffman writes that “the debate over climate change, like almost all environmental issues, is a debate over culture, worldviews and ideology.” Rather than individually reviewing dense scientific data on every topic we come across, Hoffman writes that people use “ideological filters” which are often influenced heavily by “referent groups” of those who share similar identities and values to our own. The referent group acts as a comparison, telling us what we should believe about an issue. This phenomenon is not innately harmful; bounded rationality is simply one way humans make quick decisions under constraints. After all, getting recommendations from a friend is a much easier way to decide where to eat than reading every restaurant review in the area.
However, when it comes to highly important issues, the self-reinforcing mechanisms of these ideological filters can create seemingly insurmountable ideological barriers. The complex nature of scientific information about climate change and its role as an “existential challenge to our contemporary worldviews” makes it a perfect candidate for intense partisan debate.
Consensus Messaging
In efforts to change beliefs about climate change, consensus-based approaches are common. With consensus-based approaches, the audience is given information about the scientific community’s beliefs – e.g., a study through the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication told half their sample that “97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused global warming is happening.” Multiple studies, including Većkalov et al.’s 2024 study with participants across 27 countries, have found a positive experimental effect of consensus messaging on participants’ judgments of the scientific norm. In other words, telling someone the percentage of scientists who believe climate change is happening makes their perception of how many scientists believe climate change is happening more accurate. As the pre-messaging perceptions are often lower than reality, these studies would support the idea that consensus messaging can be used to increase people’s perceptions of the extent of scientific consensus about human-caused climate change.
However, the research is not fully in support of the value of consensus messaging. A 2017 experimental study by communication scholars Dixon (The Ohio State University), Hmielowski (University of Florida), and Ma (Oregon State University) found that it may not achieve a significant effect. Additionally, for particular groups, such as those with an active distrust of climate scientists, consensus statements can lead to further ideological entrenchment and climate skepticism, as seen in a 2016 study by cognitive scientists Cook (University of Melbourne) and Lewandowsky (University of Western Australia).
Additionally, the link between audience beliefs about scientific consensus and general beliefs about climate change, as well as between beliefs and behavior, is a lot more complicated. The scientific consensus may be upwards of 97%, but in the United States, 72% of the population believes global warming is happening, but only 59% believe it’s caused mostly by human activities. When asked if they expect global warming will harm them personally, the U.S. average is even lower, at 45%.
So, How Else Can We Communicate?
Effective climate communication must be targeted. Controlled lab tests and real-world experiments have found that value-based messaging is more effective than consensus-based messages when trying to change climate change acceptance among U.S. conservatives.
There are about as many ways to communicate climate issues as there are audiences. Some examples include:
- Economic Value: Highlights the economic value generated by climate-aligned work.
- For example, messaging might focus on new jobs in renewable energy, ecotourism drawn by conservation efforts, or mitigation and adaptation efforts to protect existing economic hubs.
- Free-Market Focus: Similar to an economic value approach, but specifically highlights free-market climate solutions, addressed at those opposed to highly regulatory climate or environmental policies.
- For example, Dixon and colleagues found that targeted messaging on “how deregulation of the energy market has led to an increased supply of renewable energy in Arizona” led to an increase in conservatives’ acceptance of climate change.
- Disaster Resistance and Resilience: Focuses on the need for disaster-resilient climate solutions. Messaging can be further tailored to the specific issues facing an area, such as heat, wildfires, flooding, drought, etc.
- For example, messaging could focus on flood adaptation methods in Atlantic and Gulf coast states, and tailor mentions of the underlying cause of climate change based on audience receptiveness.
- Especially in areas where even mentions of climate change are highly political, resilience messaging can offer one alternative.
- Public Health: Highlights the public health benefits of climate mitigation and adaptation strategies, or the health risks of not taking action.
- For example, messaging could highlight the benefits of cleaner air or a reduced urban heat island effect from mitigation and adaptation methods, or the negative health impacts of food and water insecurity and the increased spread of infectious diseases caused by climate change.
- Nature and Conservation: Messaging focuses on conservation needs, such as protecting public lands, animals, and ecosystems from climate change.
- Faith-Based: Some religious organizations use theological arguments in favor of addressing climate change.
- For example, Chicago-based regional non-profit Faith in Place approaches the “environmental crisis [as] a spiritual crisis” to pull in people from various religious traditions.
Many of the above messaging approaches can apply to the same project or policy. Consider a city project focused on nature-based climate change solutions, such as Medellín, Colombia’s green corridors. Not only does the project restore biodiversity, it also decreases the area’s average heat by addressing the urban heat island effect, which in turn reduces heat-related deaths. Projects like this can also add economic value through job creation, protect existing economic corridors, and provide disaster resilience against heavy rains and flooding.
Climate Communication into Climate Action
Communication is not the end-all, be-all of solving climate issues. However, awareness of the best ways to communicate with your target group is an essential prerequisite to allow for action to occur within the relevant political context.
Even as the U.S. federal government continues to act regressively on climate, we must continue to push for more climate action at the federal, state, and local levels. Knowing whether potential funders respond best to arguments about biodiversity, health, or economic value can be the difference between a project going forward and not.
Reader Questions
- Which of the mentioned communication strategies would be most effective on you?
- How does your approach to working on, writing about, or advocating for climate action change based on your audience?