Most people care about climate change — our focus needs to shift from the problem to solutions

A large international study surveyed nearly 60,000 people across 63 countries. Eighty-six per cent “believed” in climate change, where “belief” was measured using questions about whether humans were causing climate change, whether it was a serious threat to humanity and a global emergency, and action was necessary to avoid a global catastrophe. Most also supported climate policies, with an average global score of 72%. Even the lowest country had majority support.

Another recent study found that 89% of people wanted to see more political action on climate. Eighty-six per cent thought that people in their country “should try to fight global warming”.

There are countless other surveys that find similar results. People do care about climate change and want to see more action. What surveys also find is that we always underestimate how many others support climate action. People think that those who care about climate change are in the minority. In reality, they vastly outnumber those who don’t.

This matters for how we talk about it. If scepticism was high, then our main focus would be on raising awareness of climate change. But people already know that it’s a serious problem. Scientists, activists, and communicators have been successful, even if they often feel like nothing has made a difference.

What we need to talk about now is solutions. That’s where scepticism lies now. People either think that they’re ineffective or won’t work – for example “electric cars emit more CO2 than petrol”, “we don’t have enough land for solar and wind” or “we’ll run out of minerals.” Or they think that fixing the problem will be extremely expensive, and the costs will be unfairly distributed across society.

Talking only about the impacts of climate change — rising temperatures, sea level rise, heat stress — will not change that. But that’s exactly the approach that I see many communicators grasping for. With the feeling that we’re moving too slowly (which we are), people reach for doomsday scenarios to “wake people up”. Desperate to turn attitudes around, there is talk about increasingly catastrophic outcomes. That’s how you get attention and eyes on the problem. As I describe in my book — Not the End of the World — I’m doubtful that this will work.

The OECD surveyed 40,000 people across 20 countries about their attitudes to climate policies. They were split into three groups. The first was shown a video about the impacts of climate change. The second, a video about the impacts of specific climate solutions and policies. The third group was shown both videos. The video showing the climate impacts barely increased support for climate action at all. The one about specific policies and solutions was much more successful. The group that was shown both videos had the largest increase.

This makes sense. If you’re sceptical that your country can keep the lights on with low-carbon energy, then what’s going to shift your position is understanding how renewables and nuclear energy can build a resilient and secure electricity grid. If you think that a carbon tax will just push the poorest into even deeper poverty, then understanding how these taxes can be more fairly designed is what might change your mind.

As a writer and communicator on climate change and its solutions, I don’t think we’re doing a good job on this. Public debate is filled with misconceptions, and we’re not doing enough to counter them or provide a better and more compelling narrative. Again, I think this partly because our instinct is to keep talking only about the problem and not how we get serious about solving it.

Talking about solutions also helps us reach those who would normally be disengaged from climate issues. “Climate change” can be a polarising term, but clean energy, lower pollution, less waste, energy security, or lower bills are not. Almost everyone likes clean energy, and no one likes pollution. Let’s talk about them more.

There is no question that we’re in a precarious position. Over the last year, we’ve seen temperature records broken time and again. The speed at which we need to act keeps getting higher. But that is accompanied by accelerating developments in clean energy too. We keep smashing records in solar, wind, and electric vehicles as well. So there is both a sense of fear about the trajectory that we’re on and excitement about the future we could build if we got serious about deploying many of the solutions we have and continuing to innovate on those we don’t.

Holding both of these emotions together is fine. In fact, it’s appropriate for our position. My argument is not that we should never talk about the impacts of climate change and what’s at stake. We need frequent reminders of why we need to act and understand what risks we will need to face and adapt to. But only talking about catastrophic outcomes — to the point of paralysis that there is nothing we can do about it — is not going to shift the needle.

We need to build a positive vision of the future we can have. Instead of only talking about what we’re trying to run away from, we need a compelling and inspiring image of what we’re running to. And then we need to get serious about engaging peoples’ concerns about the solutions that get us there.

Dr Hannah Ritchie is Senior Researcher in the Programme for Global Development at the University of Oxford. She is also Deputy Editor and Lead Researcher at the highly influential online publication Our World in Data, which brings together the latest data and research on the world’s largest problems and makes it accessible for a general audience. 

Photo credit: Angela Catlin

Her Sunday Times bestselling book Not The End of the World: Surprising facts, dangerous myths and hopeful solutions for our future on planet Earth is out now in paperback, ebook and audio.