ITL #365 The covid-19 pandemic: lessons for the climate crisis1 year ago
There’s much to be learnt from comparing the coronavirus and climate change crises. By Daniel Silberhorn.
With covid-19, we experience a major crisis – but we act. Politicians listen to the voice of science and put clear, binding rules in place that turn daily life upside down. With some countries being more consequent and clear than others. Rather than protesting, the majority of people comply; many acting as effective multipliers for the official message. Even though the measures dramatically limit personal freedom and social and economic costs are severe.
Some would argue that the climate crisis has even bigger consequences than the new coronavirus in the long-term. According to a report, we may have to invest $1.8 trillion by 2030 to prepare for the effects of global warming. Payoffs, on the other hand, could be four times that figure.
Nonetheless, it has already taken decades for world leaders and citizens to really act. Why?
Comparing the corona and climate crises, five key factors emerge: direct concern, lower complexity, manageable options, a defined time horizon and clear alternatives.
- Direct concern
Things that happen far away or remain abstract touch us less than what happens near us with an effect on us. Our media system recognizes this principle as an important news value and, in reporting, strengthens the visibility and perception of near events that directly affect us.
This is also the case with the new coronavirus: It's about the here and now – in the developed world. And the effects are about friends and parents who might not get a bed in the intensive care unit if we infect them. And politicians are judged on infections this week and death toll the next.
Climate change is different: It took experiences such as the 2019 heat records which could be felt ‘at home’ for people to realize it’s not about our grandchildren’s future. It’s about our children’s. The window of opportunity and the need for action have come at least a generation closer to us.
- Lower complexity
The cause of covid-19 is obvious: a single virus. And the risk is also clear: the faster and the more covid-19 spreads, the more difficult it is to control the consequences.
In contrast, many factors play a role in climate change. And we are only just beginning to understand the interrelationships. The aspects we have to look into are just as complex. This can make individuals feel powerless and it is easy to point to other areas that seemingly have more impact.
Complexity paralyses action and outsources responsibility and initiative into a diffuse social cloud.
- Manageable options
In the complexity of climate change, options for action are woven into all areas of life – consumption, leisure, mobility. Climate protectors are therefore calling for the 'great transformation': We have to change our lives fundamentally. This may be right on a societal level. But if climate-friendly action is framed only as having to give something up, which is often the case, it’s seen as loss of quality of life.
In covid-19, official communication shows a clear path of action. Everyone knows what they can do, and the reason is obvious: Slow down the virus. Flatten the curve. A manageable number of behavior patterns, and it potentially only hurts for a short time.
- Defined time horizon
As drastic as the measures may be in daily life, we can hope that in a few weeks or at least months we can continue with life as normal. The problem has an expiration date.
With climate change, it's a different story. We are aware that we need changes that are permanent. For example, it's not enough to leave the car in the garage for four weeks. We need new mobility concepts. It’s a matter of finding a new balance. Real change. We do not like that.
- Clear alternatives
A graph depicting the number of infected people over time plays a crucial role in fighting the new virus – once with countermeasures, once without. A horizontal line shows the capacity of the health system. ‘Flatten the Curve’ to stay below that line is the plausible mission. At a glance, it is clear we have a choice between two scenarios, with one being clearly more desirable than the other.
While climate change also has iconic images, there is no widespread visual representation that links human action and its consequences to clear scenarios. We have no ‘flatten the curve’ for CO2.
Lessons for climate change communication
Despite all the dire consequences: During the first weeks in a country like Germany, the corona crisis seems to be perceived through the lens of a certain manageability, compared to climate change: Lower complexity, manageable options, defined time horizon and clearly presented alternatives.
One thesis to be derived would be: On an individual level, effective communication must transport climate change in a way that it becomes 'manageable' in everyday life.
If you want to reach people on the individual level, apocalyptic communication or appealing to reason will only get you this far – it may be ignored and only motivate a few. Rather, if we want to make a difference, we must answer the question that drives everyone: "What's in it for me?”
This also means that communication should seek to frame the fight against climate change as a matter of what we gain. It’s about bringing positive effects into the personal present. And to make it easy to act in a climate-friendly way. As Nudge Theory says: A certain behavior becomes more likely the more convenient it is to realize. Visibly placed litter bins are more likely to be used.
Especially trends like deceleration, health and mindfulness offer the chance to communicate climate protection on a personal level as a gain in quality of life.
One example is the so-called ‘Planetary Health Diet’, promoting eating habits that are healthier for the planet – and for people. Without having to fully give up ‘bad things’ completely. Such a perspective is much more attractive for many than, for instance, a completely vegan diet. And it comes with the good feeling of acting correctly at all levels.
The big task also becomes more 'manageable' through defining intermediate steps resulting from the overarching positive vision – even if everything should happen at once. And we could use Big Data to show how individual actions do add up to clear effects on the climate and quality of life.
The bottom line is what we are doing in the corona crisis provides inspiration for effective climate communication: Make it appear manageable.
Apocalypse, no. Quality of life, yes.
Daniel Silberhorn is an IPRA Board Member and has 15 years of experience in advising national and international organizations in managing their reputation and relationships. A member of FleishmanHillard Germany’s corporate communication team and the senior consultant responsible for sustainability and sustainable change, he is also a lecturer for Global Communications at Erfurt University, Germany, and a guest lecturer at the Escola Superior de Comunicacao Social in Lisbon and Ramon Llull University, Barcelona.mail the author
visit the author's website
Forward, Post, Comment | #IpraITLWe are keen for our IPRA Thought Leadership essays to stimulate debate. With that objective in mind, we encourage readers to participate in and facilitate discussion. Please forward essay links to your industry contacts, post them to blogs, websites and social networking sites and above all give us your feedback via forums such as IPRA’s LinkedIn group. A new ITL essay is published on the IPRA website every week. Prospective ITL essay contributors should send a short synopsis to IPRA head of editorial content Rob Gray email
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook