Communications around climate change need to become more positive and less jargonistic, according to a new guide for local authority teams and those working in strategic climate communications.
The guide has been produced by the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport (ADEPT) and Yorkshire & Humber Climate Commission, and was released last month.
It is informed by research conducted by the Climate Outreach charity last year. A key issue from the research is that “trust in British society, politics and government is collapsing” and many people are yet to be convinced that net zero offers a positive way forward.
“The message for us as communicators is that people care about climate change and they are open to clear and well-framed communication about it, but we need to approach the conversation differently,” the guide states. “Climate communicators should also tailor messages to audiences. Don’t use technical and elite jargon: it’s alienating and excludes people. Likewise, statistics aren’t trusted and should not be overused.”
It recommends explaining why climate action and policies matter and what they mean for people’s lives.
“Alarming facts about climate change can be overwhelming and make people less likely to want to think or talk about it,” it warns.
“Communicators need to talk about how acting on climate change can improve our lives” and “focus primary messages on the benefits of climate action”.
There should also be a “focus on success stories” when addressing national or global issues and communicators should “avoid language that focuses on limitations or sacrifices”.
Instead, they should “emphasise solutions that protect people and nature from harm and pollution, rather than forcing lifestyle changes”.
The guide states: “People trust voices they know, so draw on local leaders, scientists, doctors, healthcare professionals, independent advice centres and farmers to deliver your message.”
What not to say
It also addresses the problem of misinformation, and advises communicators to “avoid getting drawn into endless rebuttals, especially on social media”.
The guide recommends establishing a “positive counter-narrative by proactively demonstrating benefits, rather than reacting to misinformation with statistics or ‘myth-busting’”.
It also suggests “preferred ways of talking about climate action” to replace common terms.
Climate change should be replaced by climate crisis, which will work for those who are “ informed and concerned”. The guide suggests using changing climate or global heating for general comms “linking to climate impacts felt in your place, community, or issue”.
It also advises using the phrase “moving to clean, more secure energy” instead of “decarbonisation”.
When it comes to net zero, this should not be used in “isolation or as shorthand” as it is a technical term that is not well understood, according to the guide. “Put it in context and always explain it as a solution for reducing further climate change and link to practical actions.”
Commenting on the new guide, Hannah Bartram, chief executive of ADEPT, told In.Comms that while most people say that climate change matters to them, “it can be difficult for messages to cut through”.
She added: “We wanted to bridge that gap with something practical and evidence-based.”
The guide has been developed “to support public sector communicators with practical tools to engage people in ways that connect with their everyday lives,” she said.
By having a focus on “tangible benefits like cleaner air, better transport and improved health, the guide helps build trust, cut through complexity and support more effective conversations about climate action at a local level”.
Claire Melia-Tompkins, co-chair of the CIPR’s local public services group, commented: “This guide is a timely reminder that effective climate communication isn’t about technical language or targets.”
She added: “By focusing on local benefits, trusted voices and clear, relatable messaging, it gives local public service communicators the tools they need to build understanding, trust and meaningful action in communities.”