Effective climate communication is all about the source, emotion, and perspective for action.

“Good” climate communication is often thought to consist of accurate facts: whether climate change exists (yes) and whether humans play a major role in it (absolutely). The counterpart is climate misinformation: the deliberate dissemination of incorrect information and misleading ideas about causes, solutions and those responsible. The assumption is that the former leads to more support for climate policy and the latter to less. So if we disseminate sufficient accurate and understandable information so that everyone knows how climate change works and how urgent the problem is, support for climate policy will follow automatically, right?

Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Communication science shows that in effective climate communication, aimed at convincing people of the importance of better climate policy and taking action to achieve it, conveying knowledge is not actually decisive. International research shows that convincing people depends on entirely different factors. For example, it is just as important that the message fits with your world view and that you trust the messenger. The emotions evoked by an article, video or post also play a role. Finally, a message must give the recipient a sense of agency, the idea that you can do something about climate change.^{1 2 3 4}

Communication that prompts action

Simply transferring knowledge is therefore not enough. How you, as a science communicator or journalist, convey and package the message, or ‘framing’, is also important in order to achieve a certain effect.⁵ Facts need a story and significance in order to resonate with the reader. For example, the well-known ‘hockey stick graph’ only gained broad public and policy significance when it was placed in the emotional context of An Inconvenient Truth.^{6 7}

Some stories work better than others. When calling for climate action, it helps if a message evokes positive emotions and encourages concrete action.^{8 9} The campaign “A better environment starts with you!” from the 1990s was successful not because it was factually correct. After all, a better environment does not start with the individual, but with holding large polluters accountable, who are keen to use this type of message to shift responsibility. The slogan worked because it made it clear who should do what and because the action is simple. You do something for the environment at home, something easy and concrete like recycling, and that makes you feel good about your own contribution (positive emotion).

What are best practices in climate communication?

1. Give people perspective and emphasise actions that individuals can take themselves (“personal efficacy”).¹⁰ Research shows that fuelling fear does not increase people’s engagement with climate change. Showing the negative consequences of climate change can even be counterproductive by overwhelming people and reducing their sense of agency.^{11 12} It is better to emphasise the positive contributions people can make to combating climate change. This confirms people’s belief that climate change exists and can strengthen their support for environmentally friendly behaviour.¹³
2. The credibility of the messenger determines how credible the message is perceived to be.¹⁴ Research shows that people who believe in climate change often regard climate scientists as the most credible source, while people with a more sceptical attitude trust climate scientists less than the ‘average’ scientist.¹⁵ However, a credible messenger does not have to be a scientist. Interestingly, people mainly trust information from friends and family on this subject.^{16 17} It is, of course, important that accurate information is discussed around the kitchen table and that misinformation does not find its way in.
3. Effective climate communication does not evoke fear, vague hope or a feeling of detachment, but rather appeals to a person’s decisiveness and capacity for action.^{18 19} We call this ‘agency’: does the requested action match the capacity of a person or group? Media research shows that this agency is often lacking. The causes and consequences of climate change are mentioned, but concrete solutions and those responsible are not. Moreover, the solutions proposed are often too large-scale for the individual: how can one person alone reduce global greenhouse gas emissions? It therefore helps to mention concrete, achievable actions, such as: “global emissions can be reduced by cutting subsidies to fossil fuel companies, for example by holding politicians accountable by signing this petition.”

The most important thing? The most reliable messengers are the people around us. And you are one of them. Talk to your family, friends and colleagues about climate change and what you and they can do (together) to tackle climate change systemically. Better climate communication starts with you.

See also the page Communication with useful guides to help you communicating your actions.

References

1. Scheufele, D.A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49(1): 103–122. DOI:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784 ↩︎
2. Hornsey, M. J. (2021). The role of worldviews in shaping how people appraise climate change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 42: 36-41. DOI:10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.021 ↩︎
3. Wang, Y., and Jaidka, K. (2024). Confirmation bias in seeking climate information: Employing relative search volume to predict partisan climate opinions. Social Science Computer Review 42(1): 4–24. DOI:10.1177/08944393231160963 ↩︎
4. MacInnes, S., Hornsey, M.J., Bretter, C., Pearson, S., Fielding, K.S., and Bersoff, D. 2026. Who do we trust on climate change, and why? Global Environmental Change 96(103096). DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2025.103096 ↩︎
5. Nisbet, M.C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 51(2): 12–23. DOI:10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23 ↩︎
6. Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., and Hughes, M.K. (1999). Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759–762 DOI:10.1029/1999GL900070 ↩︎
7. Guggenheim, D., Bender, L., David, L., & Gore, A. (2006). An inconvenient truth. Widescreen ed. Paramount Home Entertainment. ↩︎
8. Feldman, L., and Hart, P.S. (2018). Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Analysis 38(3): 585-602. DOI:10.1111/risa.12868 ↩︎
9. Zummo, L., Donovan, B., and Busch, K. C. (2021). Complex influences of mechanistic knowledge, worldview, and quantitative reasoning on climate change discourse: Evidence for ideologically motivated reasoning among youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 58: 95–127. DOI:10.1002/tea.21648 ↩︎
10. Geiger, N., Dwyer, T., and Swim, J.K. (2023) Hopium or empowering hope? A meta-analysis of hope and climate engagement. Frontiers in Psychology 14(1139427). DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1139427 ↩︎
11. O’Neill, S., and Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). “Fear won’t do it”: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication 30(3): 355–379. DOI:10.1177/1075547008329201 ↩︎
12. Wang, S., Hurlstone, M. J., Leviston, Z., Walker, I., and Lawrence, C. (2019). Climate change from a distance: An analysis of construal level and psychological distance from climate change. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 230. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00230 ↩︎
13. McDonald, R.I., Chai, H.Y., and Newell, B.R. (2015). Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: An integrative review. Journal of Environmental Psychology 44: 109–118. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.003 ↩︎
14. MacInnes, S., Hornsey, M.J., Bretter, C., Pearson, S., Fielding, K.S., and Bersoff, D. 2026. Who do we trust on climate change, and why? Global Environmental Change 96(103096). DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2025.103096 ↩︎
15. Ghasemi, O., and Newell, B. (2025). Climate scientists are trusted globally, just not as much as other scientists – here’s why. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-are-trusted-globally-just-not-as-much-as-other-scientists-heres-why-256441
    a.     Gebaseerd op dit wetenschappelijke artikel: Cologna, V. et al. (2025). Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries. Nature Human Behavior 9: 713–730. DOI:10.1038/s41562-024-02090-5 ↩︎
16. MacInnes, S., Hornsey, M.J., Bretter, C., Pearson, S., Fielding, K.S., and Bersoff, D. 2026. Who do we trust on climate change, and why? Global Environmental Change 96(103096). DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2025.103096 ↩︎
17. Orr, M. et al. (2025). Breaking the Climate Silence: Predictors of discussing global warming with family and friends. PLOS Climate 4(4): e0000538. DOI:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000538 ↩︎
18. Hornsey, M. J. (2021). The role of worldviews in shaping how people appraise climate change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 42: 36-41. DOI:10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.021 ↩︎
19. Newell, P., Bulkeley, H., Turner, K., Shaw, C., Caney, S., Shove, E., and Pidgeon, N. (2015). Governance traps in climate change politics: re-framing the debate in terms of responsibilities and rights. WIREs Climate Change 6: 535–540. DOI:10.1002/wcc.356 ↩︎