TCC #41: Climate change has a PR problem

Like the Harris campaign, the climate movement still can't draw a simple picture of what 'good' looks like

There have been a million breakdowns and theories as to why the Democrats lost the 2024 election, but today I'd like to focus on a very particular part of these campaigns. Just one line from each side, in fact. Because I believe these two lines highlight not only what went wrong for the Democrats, but also what's gone wrong for the climate movement for 30-50 years.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that climate change is nuanced, and we haven’t found a compelling enough goal to push people towards. We’re very good at explaining the problem (too good, actually — everyone’s sick of hearing about it). We’re not so good at painting a tangible goal or future state that the average person can get on board with.

The Harris campaign had this problem too. They weren’t exactly promising much to look forward to. Instead, they relied on negatives: encouraging people not to vote for Trump and not to destroy democracy. (Much like climate activists encouraging people not to drive and eat meat and rely on fossil fuels.)

This can work sometimes. It didn’t this time.

What’s better is a simple, clear picture of what a better future would look like. Climate activists are still struggling to articulate this.

Harris struggled too.

In contrast, Trump does well with simple, tangible ideas.

Where Harris had What can be, unburdened by what has been, Trump had make America great again. Here's Harris on illegal immigration: "We have laws that have to be followed and enforced, that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally, and there should be consequence." You already know Trump's stance on immigration: in 2016 it was the wall; in 2024 it was the cats and dogs.

And look, Trump is hardly coherent 98% of the time, and he has spewed plenty of word salad of his own, but occasionally he hits the nail on the head. And unfortunately, his fanbase seems to manage to filter out the rest.

Here’s the line that stood out to me recently, after watching the last debate (which feels like a decade ago now). It’s Trump and Harris talking about, ostensibly, the same thing: why most Americans feel like they're just scraping by.

Harris's solution? An Opportunity Economy.

Trump's? Gas under $2/gallon.

Which is the better plan? Harris's. Which would help more people in the working and middle class? Harris's. Which did people vote for?

Ironically for anti-science bleachmonger, Trump here had taken a leaf out of every science writer's playbook: give them something specific to hold on to. Bring it back to what they know.

Opportunity Economy is not specific (it's a weasel word). It's abstract; it's not something they deal with daily, like groceries or gas prices. It's not something they can imagine in neon digits on a gas station sign. In this particular example, Harris was talking to the country, while Trump was talking to the individual.

That's extremely relevant for the climate movement, which often, to its detriment, speaks about saving the planet or the Earth. But who really cares about the whole planet? We care much more about ourselves. Studies show that even people who have just had their homes wiped out by hurricanes or 1000-year storms are actually less likely to believe/care/want to think about climate change. When your house has been flattened, the planet doesn't really feel like your problem.

Climate activists, in all their forms, know that this is a problem. And they've tried to address it, many times.

They tried it with 1.5°C — but think about how inspiring (not!) that sounds to the average person. We're trying to limit planetary warming to no more than 1.5°C! (Actually, it was even worse — the target was 2°C and ideally no more than 1.5°C). You can see why that was dead in the water.

Even the phrase ‘global warming’ sounds, really, kinda nice — especially if you're reading about it in Canada in February.

And of course we have the latest favourite phrase of governments and bloated corporations everywhere: net zero.

Every time I hear the words net zero I hear an imaginary chorus of angels. I imagine the board members do too.

Here's the problem with net zero: the net.

If we'd been able to say zero (something our favorite red-hat-wearing American oligarch might say), it might've stuck. It wouldn't have been true, or accounted for just how hard global decarbonization really is — but it might've had a chance.

Net zero is about as inspiring as Harris's Opportunity Economy or What can be, unburdened by what has been. It's word salad. It's vague, and fluffy, and people call bullshit.

Anyway, at this point we're probably stuck with it. We’re also stuck with 'climate change' (doesn't sound particularly threatening, and anyway, isn’t change a good thing?), an 'energy transition' (quite euphemistic, really), and a ‘cleaner, greener future’. In good news (kidding) won't have to talk about our 'Inflation Reduction Act' for much longer, thanks to — yes — our favorite American oligarch. (Interesting, isn’t it, that the only way to pass a climate bill is to disguise it as something else.)

I think a tangible, positive vision — ideally one that can be summed up as simply as “$2 a gallon” — is something climate communicators should be thinking about. We might not land on it immediately, but we have to do a better job than we’re currently doing.

The right messaging can change everything. So much depends on us getting this right.

---