How should we be reporting climate target setbacks?

A recent Guardian article quoted a climate scientist in its headline, describing the Paris Agreement goal of keeping global warming to below 1.5C as “deader than a doornail”. This centuries-old phrase recalls Dickensian misery, pain and hardship. And, obviously, death. It may be an accurate assessment of our predicament, but is it still the best way to communicate climate setbacks? 

There are a number of academic studies that effectively demonstrate people are more likely to support climate policies if they are framed in particular ways. Solutions journalism, better known in Europe as constructive journalism, is bolstered by newsroom data that shows audiences respond better to climate stories that illustrate human ingenuity, courage, and drive. These human stories largely make up the kind of news that most people actually care to consume. 

When the Paris Agreement was news back in 2015, the 1.5C target quickly became a shorthand for communicating the gravity of the climate crisis. It may well be that this one number has done more to educate people on climate change than any other. A simple metric is easy enough to understand when the climate science is not. But time has a funny way of passing, and targets that once spoke for the scale of human ambition nearly ten years ago are now becoming a symbol of political failure. 

Our charity has been training climate scientists for years on how to talk about climate and nature. It’s a sign of the times that we’re now running workshops for scientists on how they can better communicate climate target setbacks when talking to the media. The scientists we’ve spoken to most recently are aware of the risks that missed targets pose to shutting down the climate conversation. And there’s recognition that the moment may lead to feelings of hopelessness and disenfranchisement. 

Businesses themselves are grappling with how to talk to their customers and shareholders about failing to meet their own climate goals. In the case of the media, editors know that the relationship with audiences is often tenuous and ephemeral. If we want to avoid audiences turning away from climate conversations, we need to invest in people-centred stories that we know audiences like because they find them more immediately relevant and relatable to their own lives.  It’s what Norwegian journalist Ingrid Tinmannsvik calls ‘seeing the world with both eyes’ – not just the problems but also the solutions – to stop people from turning away. 

In practice it means reporting on how communities are finding it harder to live in healthy and fair ways, but also what people from all walks of life and all sectors are doing to fight for that sustainable future. In our small corners of the UK, you can see a fraction of the work that’s been going on in the background. Visionary businessmen in Banstead run a high street ‘energy hub’ that invites passersby to explore home clean energy solutions – not of the future but of the present. And in Oxford, Makespace Oxford has transformed 28 derelict spaces across Oxfordshire, facilitated the creation of over 200 jobs and housed more than 100 organisations.

Across the country, ground-up sustainability efforts abound, from the hundreds of volunteer-run Repair Cafes to hairdressers bringing sustainability to their industry, to community benefit farming. Add to this the myriad Net Zero training hubs now being launched at Sixth Form colleges around the country, and the young people who see their future in the green transition. We are not short of stories.

We recognise the difficulty journalists face in keeping hope alive – and readers engaged – whilst doing accurate reporting. Of course we must not shy away from the numbers and the hard truths, like the fact that 2024 will almost certainly be the warmest year on record. But we believe that truly engaging readers means thinking beyond quant targets like 1.5C or ‘net zero by 2030’. Climate scientists themselves have told us they are reluctant to move too far from the stats. But more and more, we are hearing them say that ‘1.5C is not a cliff we fall off’. Every tenth of a degree matters. That imagery of stepping back from the edge is the counterpoint to the death knell. 

As with journalists and scientists, we believe experts and leaders in all sectors can and should be more human and more passionate when they’re talking to their audiences. We need to hear the human stories of the energy transition. What is working and what isn’t, how entrepreneurs, small businesses and corporations are changing their practices in recognition of the fact that British people care so deeply about climate and nature.

Part of being more human is not being afraid to show emotion. If we don’t see climate scientists, journalists and leaders across sectors connecting emotionally with the topic, how can we expect anyone to be moved? We need to put less energy into containing our feelings and more into expressing them in conversation, trying to answer the question of how best to live our lives.

This blog was written by Jasmin Souesi, Communications and Media Manager at Climate Outreach and Tara Bryer, Programme Manager at Climate Outreach.

This piece was originally published in BusinessGreen on 12 December.