Introduction

This page is an introduction to our new guide to help you communicate more effectively about Climate, Energy and Transport. However, the principles set out in the toolkit could easily apply to any issue you work on.

Why Now?

The far right has increased its reach and influence in recent years, and we must meet the challenge. To do so we must make our voices louder and clearer, not respond to the agenda they set out for us. They have been successful in contaminating phrases like “Net Zero” and “15 Minute Cities” and unfairly placed people seeking refuge as to blame for all our problems.

There is a clear popular counter narrative, that billionaires and corporations are hoarding wealth, avoiding paying their fair share of tax and exerting undue influence on our politicians. This guide seeks to help you be clear about the real causes of the problems and use terms that are clearly understood by our audience.

Who is it for?

Anyone who wants to communicate more effectively. Even if your role is not about speaking to supporters or the public, the way you communicate matters. The way you talk to others in your group or organisation creates the template for what is normal. If we always use language that makes bad things seem less damaging it can influence how we look at fixing those problems.

How to use it

That’s up to you, but we would suggest not trying to do everything at once, look at what most immediately makes sense for you and start from there.

Key tips for improving your communications

Mind the Traps

There are several common types of traps we fall into when talking about issues.  We want to explain them briefly below and then show a few examples of them in action and, crucially, how we would change things.

The Chameleon Trap

(or the Sanitising trap)

Chameleons change colour to match their surroundings, hiding themselves in plain sight. Sometimes the language we use hides the harm being done and makes bad things sound acceptable.

The Chameleon trap is when we use jargon, coded language or euphemisms to make something bad or damaging seem less harmful. If we are trying to stop something bad happening, why make it sound better?

For example, why would a group campaigning on international issues ever use a term like “collateral damage”? It is a term created by the US military to make killing civilians sound more acceptable. Better to call it “killing civilians”, because that’s what it is.

Sometimes the alternative is longer, but that doesn’t matter. The shorter version is only helpful if it makes people feel something.

In practice

[Text adapted from “we all make mistakes” by Framing Matters]

The Sloth Trap

(or the Passive trap)

Sloths are slow animals not known for their “get-up-and-go”. Here we are using them to describe messages that fail to identify why things happen, phrases that are inactive like a sloth.

Many people working in the charity sector use a passive third-person voice in communications. This language has been adopted to sound rational and scientific, but it robs our stories of emotion and makes them less likely to connect with and motivate people.

So, for example, we shouldn’t say: “Bus services are unreliable and fares are spiralling”

Leaving out the cause of these problems makes them appear normal and inevitable, this makes people feel fatalistic and unable to do anything about the problem.

So instead, we should say: “The bus companies’ lack of investment and greed have cut the number of buses making them unreliable.”

Always say who is responsible if you want change to happen. Don’t worry if it takes more words, it is most important that your audience understand the situation.

In practice

Two other key traps which are explored in more detail in the toolkit are the Parrot Trap and the Rat Trap.

Parrots are famous for repeating back what’s said to them.  So repeating your opposition is likely to harm your cause, as we can end up accidentally reinforcing the idea in people’s heads.

The Rat Trap is where you assume our audience has the same associations with a word or phrase that we do. This can often be technical jargon so we want to always use words that we can be sure our audience understand in a similar way to us.

 Helpful advice for climate communications

Once we have grasped the traps, then we can think about the key principles we want to deploy in our communications. The toolkit focuses in on advice for those working on transport, new energy systems and ensuring everyone has a warm home. 

Below we have included the advice for speaking about climate in a general way but these ideas can be adapted to whatever issue matters to you.

1. Make the “We” as big as possible

Make the “we” as big as possible without being everyone. We want our movement to be open to all.

Example: “No matter what our background, most of us want a fairer world and a greener energy system.”

2. Highlight the problem but give a clear solution and don’t overdo threat

We should never shy away from the problem we face; it is just the way it is presented that matters.

When we set out the problem, it must have a clear cause and we must also provide solutions. It is also good to point to previous positive actions that have been taken to show future actions are possible.

Example: “While figures paint a grim picture of climate breakdown caused by greedy fossil fuel companies, we know another future is possible. Scotland has been able to produce up to 100% of its electricity needs using green energy, so the UK as a whole needs to follow.”

3. Use the facts to support your story, not the other way around

The facts don’t change people’s minds by themselves. We must tell compelling stories that connect with people and give them hope that change is possible. “1.5 degrees” might mean something to you but it does not have the same associations and relevance to your audience.

4. Avoid Crisis and War Framing

No more Crisis

While framing the issue as urgent or as a crisis might highlight its importance, it is unlikely to motivate people. It can make people feel overwhelmed and fatalistic.

It is also less likely to make people want a fair transition and instead accept whatever action is presented.

No more War

Using the war metaphor immediately pitches one side against the other. Think carefully about whether you want opponents to remain opponents.

Like crisis framing, it is less likely to encourage support for a fair transition.

5. Treat economic arguments with extreme care

We often adopt economic arguments in a bid to be taken seriously, but this may reinforce unhelpful narratives.

1. It reinforces the idea that growth and the economy are the only things that matter.
2. It undermines the moral case for climate action by implying economics is more important.
3. It implies policy should simply create more jobs, reinforcing the idea that political decisions are made purely rationally rather than being influenced by billionaires and corporations.

We have pulled some key ideas from the toolkit on to this page for an easier read but we would encourage you to read the whole thing. Improving your communications takes time and trying to apply everything at once won’t be possible. Choose something that makes sense for your situation and start there.

Read the toolkit (mobile version)