Climate communication, or climate change communication, is a part of environmental and science communication that focuses on explaining the causes, characteristics, and effects of climate change caused by humans.

Studies in this field began in the 1990s and have since expanded to include research about the media, how issues are presented, and how the public responds to climate topics. Since the late 2000s, more studies have been done in countries in the Global South, especially those focusing on climate communication with groups that have less access to resources.

Most research aims to increase public knowledge and awareness, understand cultural beliefs and emotions, and encourage public involvement and action. Important topics include knowing the audience, challenges in understanding climate issues, creating change, dividing the audience into groups, changing how messages are worded, public health, storytelling, media coverage, and influences from popular culture.

History

Scholar Amy E. Chadwick identifies Climate Change Communication as a new area of study that became important in the 1990s. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, research in developed countries, such as the United States, New Zealand, and Sweden, focused on understanding how the public perceived and understood climate change science, models, and risks. These studies showed that while the public was aware of and beginning to notice effects of climate change, such as rising temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns, their understanding of climate change was connected to other environmental issues like ozone depletion but not clearly linked to human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. This understanding was paired with growing concern that continued through the mid-2000s.

From the mid-2000s to the late 2000s, research found increasing global skepticism, even as scientific agreement on climate change grew. This period also saw more divided opinions, partly because climate change was increasingly used as a way to test political views. In 2010, researcher Susanne C. Moser noted that the focus of climate change communication expanded to include visible effects of climate change, along with science and policy. There was also more communication from a variety of voices, which helped make climate change more relevant to society. Surveys through the mid-2010s showed differing levels of concern for climate change across the world—consistent concern in developed Western countries but less concern in countries like China, Mexico, and Kenya.

In 2016, Moser observed an increase in the number of climate communication studies in both Westernized countries and countries in other parts of the world. Since 2010, there has been more attention to communication with Indigenous peoples and other groups that are often overlooked. By 2017, research continued to focus on public understanding but also began examining the role of media, how ideas are presented, public involvement, and persuasive methods. This expansion has helped establish climate change communication as its own academic field and created a group of experts who specialize in it.

Primary goals of climate communication

Climate communication and research focus on three main areas. First, they study how people understand and feel about climate change. Second, they look at how personal beliefs, emotions, and social norms influence these feelings. Third, they examine how these factors can lead to actions, such as making changes to help the environment.

In the academic field, some researchers debate whether sharing facts about climate change or using emotions to communicate is more effective. While both can lead to action, many believe that better understanding leads to more action. A 2020 study by Kris De Meyer and others challenges this idea, suggesting that taking action can also lead to greater understanding of climate change.

One area of study focuses on how people understand and view risks related to climate change. Researchers believe that knowing how people perceive risks, along with their knowledge, concerns, and beliefs, can help leaders create better communication strategies. This has led to the use of ideas from politics, sociology, and psychology in climate communication.

Improving public understanding often involves sharing scientific facts and showing how much scientists agree on climate change. It can also involve connecting with people's values and emotions. People often relate climate change to places they know, current events, or economic issues. This has led to different ways of presenting information, such as using specific examples or linking ideas. When people see climate change as a local problem, they may better understand its larger effects. Communication methods include science education, social media, news, and entertainment, which are studied separately.

Some experts study how people's views on small environmental issues relate to their views on climate change. Teaching how humans and nature are connected can help people think differently and care more about protecting the environment.

Researchers also study how people's values, emotions, and beliefs influence how they respond to climate communication. Understanding these values is important because climate change can feel distant or unclear. Emotions, such as fear or hope, play a role in how people make decisions. It is not clear whether negative emotions or positive emotions are more effective in encouraging action. Researchers are still studying how emotions affect behavior.

Some groups promoting renewable energy focus on benefits like jobs and economic growth, rather than warning about negative effects. This approach aims to connect with people's interests and meet them where they are.

Studying climate communication also involves looking at how people engage in actions to adapt to or prepare for climate change. These actions can happen at different levels, such as local communities or globally. Examples include joining climate movements, supporting policies, changing farming practices, and reducing risks from extreme weather. These actions can also change long-term values and behaviors in society. Communication strategies may also involve how people who talk about climate change interact with researchers.

Studies show that understanding and awareness alone do not always lead to action. Researchers suggest that communication should include ways to help people take action. They also study how different groups of people and regions perceive climate change. Some leaders, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, have used messages about the health benefits of climate action to inspire optimism.

A 2025 study in Nature Human Behaviour found that showing people simple, clear climate data—such as whether a lake freezes or not—makes them feel climate change has a bigger impact than when showing complex data like temperature changes. The researchers called this finding the "boiling frog effect," which suggests that people may not notice gradual changes until they become extreme.

Major issues

Climate communication focuses on ways to encourage more people to take action against climate change. Research shows that simply giving people more information about climate change does not always lead them to act. Instead, studies suggest that different groups of people need different types of messages and arguments to be persuaded. This idea is different from what some other fields, like psychology and environmental sociology, have believed.

Some groups, like The Heartland Institute in the United States, spread false information about climate change, which can confuse people and make it harder for them to understand the issue.

Scientists have created models to explain why people may not act even when they know more about climate change. One model, called the 5 Ds model, lists five main barriers:

• Distance – People may feel that climate change affects others far away, not themselves.
• Doom – If climate change is described as a disaster, it can cause fear and make people feel hopeless.
• Dissonance – People may struggle to connect the problems of climate change, like reliance on fossil fuels, with their own choices.
• Denial – People may avoid thinking about climate change to protect themselves from feeling guilty or afraid.
• Identity – People with certain beliefs, like conservative values, may feel that changes needed for climate action conflict with their identity.

A study by Kari Norgaard in Norway found that people do not act on climate change for reasons more complex than just not knowing enough. Sometimes, too much information can make people feel overwhelmed and stop caring.

A study in PLOS Climate found that people who strongly believe in their country’s importance (called "national narcissism") are less likely to support climate policies. However, people who feel a secure connection to their country (called "secure national identification") are more likely to support policies that help the environment. People with right-wing political views are also less likely to support real climate action.

A 2024 study in PLOS One showed that repeating a statement, even once, can make people believe it more, whether it supports climate science or denies it. This effect was seen even among people who already support climate science.

While simply giving more information about climate change is not always effective, understanding basic climate topics is important for changing opinions and actions. Many organizations, like the Climate Literacy Lab and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have created tools to help people learn about climate change.

Before 2008, most climate communication focused on small changes, like using less energy at home or recycling. Few strategies aimed to change behavior on a larger scale.

Effective climate communication often includes three parts: messages that inform people, messages that connect emotionally, and messages that relate to places people care about.

Different groups of people respond to climate messages in different ways. Researchers have divided audiences into groups based on shared beliefs or backgrounds to create more targeted messages. Examples include:

• In the U.S., six groups: Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, and Dismissive.
• In Australia, four or six groups similar to the U.S. model.
• In Germany, five groups.
• In India, six groups.
• In Singapore, three groups.
• In France, six groups that mix climate attitudes and values.

Scientists and communicators have debated the best words to use when talking about climate change. Terms like "global warming" and "climate change" are often used interchangeably, but "global warming" refers only to rising temperatures, while "climate change" includes all effects of climate shifts. Other terms, like "climate crisis" or "global heating," are now used more often.

In her book Braiding Sweetgrass, Robin Wall Kimmerer, a botanist, suggests that the words we use to describe nature can affect how we treat it. For example, calling a river a "resource" might make people see it as something to use, rather than something to protect. Some experts believe that how laws and policies describe nature can also influence how people view it.

Effective climate communication

Effective climate communication needs to consider the audience and the situation. Many groups have created guides and frameworks based on their experience with climate communication. This section explains those different guidelines.

In 2009, a handbook from the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions at Columbia University listed eight main ideas for communication based on research about how people make environmental decisions:

• Know who your audience is.
• Capture your audience's attention.
• Use real-life examples to explain scientific information.
• Be careful not to use too many emotional messages.
• Explain scientific and climate uncertainties clearly.
• Connect with people's values and groups they belong to.
• Encourage people to work together.
• Make it easy for people to take action.

In 2020, a strategy guide was created by On Road Media in the UK, based on lessons from how people communicated during the COVID-19 pandemic. This guide focuses on creating positive messages that help people feel hopeful about taking action on climate change. It includes six recommendations:

• Show that change is possible and explain how to do it.
• Focus on large problems and how they can be solved.
• Encourage action instead of inaction.
• Link the health of the planet to people's own health.
• Emphasize that future generations depend on everyone's efforts.
• Use simple, everyday language.

In 2018, the IPCC published a handbook for its writers about how to communicate climate information effectively. This handbook is based on research about how different communication methods affect people. It includes six main ideas:

• Be confident and clear in your communication.
• Talk about real-world issues, not abstract ideas.
• Focus on what matters most to your audience.
• Share stories about real people.
• Start with what you know best.
• Use visuals like charts and pictures to explain ideas.

A 2018 study found that using charts and graphs helps people understand climate information better than reading the same information in text. In 2020, Climate Visuals, a nonprofit group, published guidelines for using visuals in climate communication. They suggest:

• Show real people affected by climate change.
• Share new and different stories.
• Show the large-scale causes of climate change.
• Highlight strong emotional impacts of climate change.
• Know who your audience is.
• Show serious local effects of climate change.
• Be careful when using images of protests.

Psychologists have helped the world deal with the challenge of reducing climate change by studying how to communicate effectively. Research shows that messages that help people understand climate issues without making them feel hopeless or defensive are more likely to lead to action. Psychologists also study how the person delivering the message affects how it is received. For example, messages about climate change from former military officers are more accepted by some groups in the United States. Other experts, like Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac, who helped create the 2015 Paris Agreement, have encouraged people to adopt a "stubborn optimism" mindset when facing climate challenges.

A 2020 study found that explaining how climate change happens, rather than focusing on its risks, was more effective in changing people's beliefs, especially among conservatives.

A 2023 review in the Annual Review of Psychology found that climate communication works best when it: (a) connects with people's values about the environment and their sense of identity; (b) explains social norms, such as how more people are taking action over time; and (c) includes changes in systems that make it easier for people to act, like better infrastructure or fair pricing. People are more likely to support climate actions if they believe these actions are fair and if they trust the people responsible for them. People's expected emotions, like feeling proud about low-carbon choices or guilty about high-carbon ones, also influence their support for policies.

Many studies show that people often prefer messages with numbers and statistics over those with only words. A study by science communicators Ellen Peters and David M. Markowitz found that people trusted messages more and thought the senders were more knowledgeable when messages included specific numbers about climate change. However, the researchers noted that people's fear of math and their math skills suggest that messages should not include too many numbers.

People in low- and middle-income countries are more affected by climate change because of higher poverty, less access to technology, and less education. These groups need different types of information. The Paris Agreement and IPCC both highlight the importance of sustainable development to address these differences. In 2019, the Climate and Development Knowledge Network, a nonprofit group, shared lessons and guidelines based on their work communicating about climate change in Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

Organizations

Some research centers that focus on climate communication are:

• Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
• Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University
• Climate Outreach (UK)
• Climate Commission (Australia)

• International Organizations: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN Climate Change Secretariat

• Climate and Development Knowledge Network
• Climate Council
• New Zero World
• Re.Climate (Canada)
• Parlons Climat (France)
• Act Climate Labs (USA)