« Back to Home Page

EDF’s Hutson: ‘We’ve Failed. We’ve Failed to Convince the General Public to Worry About Climate Change.’

| Friday October 14th, 2011 | 4 Comments

One consistent strain of conversation, topic of session discussion, and overall general lament at SXSW Eco was the inability of the green movement to get their message across, to convince people that environmental conservation and climate change are important issues for everyone.

Environmentalists and sustainability experts have been focusing so intently on the upcoming danger, displaying graphs with alarming statistics and trying to browbeat the average Joe into recycling, composting and buying a hybrid vehicle that these savvy NGO executives and even business experts forgot the most important, most elemental rule of messaging: know your audience and tailor your message to them. Morgan Clendaniel, editor at Fast Company, said, “Being right isn’t a message. You still have to frame the message to specific audiences.”

Outside of the warmth, collegial understanding, and like-mindedness of conferences like SXSW Eco, environmental academia, and sustainable MBA programs, it’s a cold, hard world out there. Impending climate change is just one important message that is battling to be heard and internalized by people staring other realities in the face, such as a still-shaky economic environment, a high unemployment rate, healthcare upheaval, low housing values and the rising day-to-day cost of living.

Yale University Program Director Stuart DeCew talked about the culture shock some MBA grads face when they leave the comfort of their school setting and its emphasis on sustainability and go into business to make an impact, only to find that businesses might not be listening with both ears. Making significant progress integrating sustainability into an organization’s DNA make take time and require long-term stakeholder persuasion and demonstrated value. New grads need to refine their own messaging style to the business audience they will be facing.

Andrew Hutson, project manager, corporate partnerships at the Environmental Defense Fund cautions against the single-minded, high-level, doomsday message that is currently not working. “Don’t lead with ideas that threaten people’s core beliefs and ideas. They instantly turn off.” People like to hear things that confirm their own views and fall within their comfort level. If we can find the right words to tell people a compelling story that is relevant to them, they will care.

Anna Brones, a fellow attendee and writer for another SXSW Eco media partner, EcoSalon, lists words not to use like “green,” “environmental,” and “sustainable.” Robin Rather, CEO of Collective Strength, Inc. added “smart growth” and “livability” to the don’t column. After taking a poll and realizing that the vast majority of Americans didn’t know what “sustainability” meant, she crafted her own, clearer definition.

Hutson reminded everyone (and we all should know better) that it’s important to use the right words for the right audience – what works for business is probably wrong for children and the public and vice versa. Gary Lawrence, VP and chief sustainability officer for AECOM, agreed. “Communication and the spreading of ideas is more important and impactful now than any other time in history. It’s all about finding the right words.”

While the message undergoes some refining and personalization, expectations of what people are willing to do, even once they care, must be adjusted. Individual change has to come in small, non-threatening steps, although many city measures, business initiatives and even prodding by the next generation might propel people into complying with climate change action plans sooner than they would like.

Kelleigh Dulany, VP of Corporate Responsibility for Comedy Central, has a clear message and a specific demographic. She targets primarily young adult males with humor and irreverence using short video clips that deliver funny, bite-sized messages about recycling, sustainability and climate change in an entertaining way. She uses plain language and the right medium. The messages aren’t preachy and give viewers ideas of changes they can make in their own lives. Dulany said, “Make the change small, make the result big, and make the impact local.”

The green movement just needs to find the right story for each audience. It will take many people making small changes, rather than a few making big changes to make an impact. And once people are making the small changes, the bigger ones might not be far behind.

image: Angela Sevin


▼▼▼      4 Comments     ▼▼▼

Newsletter Signup
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kevin-Matthews/638037119 Kevin Matthews

    Respectfully, it is not “all about finding the right words.”

    Grasp the fact that the percentage of Americans who don’t believe in climate change is the same percentage as those who don’t believe in evolution.

    Roughly 40% or so of Americans have a fundamentally faith-based religious worldview, that fundamentally contradicts the belief in science. Their skepticism of challenging, scary scientific evidence and predictions is deep and inherent to rhein life philosophy.

    Yes, the environmental/green/sustainability/survival of life as we know it movement needs to talk with the non-scientific religious community much more effectively than we have.

    But it’s not just about the words.

    Once you’ve worked through and evaluated the alternatives, it seems perhaps the only way to bridge the tribal gulfs between us is to build new tribes, creating new connections of trust across these already-inflamed cultural boundaries.

    It is possible to do this through local, collaborative, face-to-face conversations over real community challenges, using a profound consensus-building process. I haven’t seen another way that actually works, in practice, in today’s climate.

    I’m starting to think that while climate change and other ecosystems services exhaustion are the desparate symptoms of our times, the real challenge of our times is to upgrade democracy as we have known it, to something that goes beyond binary decision making to encompass shared learning and earning and proving trust.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nick-Aster/857604924 Nick Aster

      “Their skepticism of challenging, scary scientific evidence and predictions is deep and inherent to rhein life philosophy.”

      I think that’s the point. The majority of humanity really won’t listen much to anything unless it’s articulated in a way that is relavant to them. Let’s take fundamental religion for example (the type who don’t “believe” in evolution). When those who seek to drive acceptance of climate change and other global issues learn to treat such people as more than ignorant bufoons, then precisely the type of dialogue you suggest may evolve. But I do think the message has to be tweaked, and has to come from the informed.

  • Dennis Tracz

    As mass meda has discovered the ability to reach a large audience with a single message is not possible any longer. Tailored messages designed for delivery to many smaller audiences is the way to go now.

  • http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com Nick Palmer

    I think the thrust of this article is insane. The basic premise is that some people don’t like being told the truth if it hurts, so influence them or trick them some other way using weasel words.

    Well, this yuppie marketing “me generation” BS is largely responsible for people not paying attention to reality in the first place after sixty years of intensive advertising from the marketing industry. They now appear to prefer living in a cosy fictional universe where believing glasses are half full etc alters reality and they get hostile if you burst their bubbles.

    Seriously, what needs to be done to transform civilisation sustainably is fundamental, all encompassing and downright revolutionary. Pointless focus group garbage like this, that panders to a “yuppie” P.R. view of the only way to influence people, is dangerously irresponsible.

    No doubt tweaking the message might influence more to accept it but only up to a certain point. To cure anthropogenic climate change, resource exhaustion, species extinction etc will take exactly as much of a change in our habits as is needed to do the job. What altering the words of the message and drip feeding ideas can achieve will be too late and not enough, so what’s the point?.

    Getting all excited about opinion management methods that will enable humanity to metaphorically jump 5 feet over a fifty feet chasm is just plain irresponsible.