The one-story problem

Breaking through climate fatigue requires smarter, more surprising storytelling

Over the three decades I worked for PR agencies, I developed a love-hate relationship with start-up clients. On the love side, they were usually led by engaging visionaries who saw a novel opportunity that would often translate (with help from the right PR people) into a compelling story that would resonate with audiences, influencers and media.

But two things made working for start-ups difficult. The first was that founders and their teams (with one or two honourable exceptions) expected their agency to work with the same unlimited efforts they did. Fine in principle, and PR agency staffers are some of the hardest working people I’ve ever met. But expecting them to work start-up hours for market salaries without any kind of ownership stake is a big ask.

The other big challenge was more fundamental: Most start-ups had just one story. Once the product is launched successfully, everything afterwards is diminishing returns. No new story to tell.

Climate communication faces the same problem, only worse. We’ve said it all before: this is a looming catastrophe, and something must be done. No new story to tell.

There are a couple of lessons, however, that climate communicators can take from the PR playbook: be very clear about what’s interesting enough to get attention, and find new ways to make the story resonate with different kinds of people.

“Climate change is real and we need to do something about it” has, unfortunately, become old news. It’s true, but it’s no longer cutting through. The kind of footage from the Nepal flood disaster in recent days is a tragic exception. But as extreme climate events become routine, the bar for attention rises and, with it, the human cost.

We need to find the “man bites dog” stories about climate change. Something that creates a stark contrast to the received wisdom. Something that gets people thinking, and talking, and sharing.

Climate action will make you richer

One script that’s ready to be flipped: climate action is costly. Climate action storytellers have focused on the fact that renewables are getting ever more affordable and more reliable. That’s rational, but not surprising. It’s dog bites man, and we can do better.

A man-bites-dog approach could be to turn the economics on its head. Instead of presenting climate action as a cost, focus on policies that change the game.

From a business perspective, that means making heroes out of the companies involved in the energy transition. Dramatise the growth, job creation, and profits for shareholders.

It means surprising people. For example, in the US there are as many as four times more people employed in clean energy and the energy transition than in the fossil fuel sector. In the UK, it’s five times. In Germany, more people will work in clean energy than in its automotive industry by 2030. We need relentless communication about dramatic, immediate and long-term economic growth to puncture the perception of costs.

With the right policies, we can surprise people even more. Carbon pricing with dividends makes the claim literal: climate action can put money in your pocket. Climate Income, proposed by the grassroots NGO Citizens’ Climate Lobby Europe is a great example. To be sure, there are qualifications and caveats. The key thing, though, is to break through. Get beyond the one story that everyone thinks they know.

Diff’rent strokes

Another way PR agencies commonly advise their clients to broaden their stories is to use tailored approaches to different market segments.

While climate change is clearly relevant to everyone, everywhere, it’s relevant in different ways – diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks, as the saying and 1980s sitcom had it. If we want to persuade individuals, we need to tell them stories that relate to their own perceptions, expectations and prejudices. This can require calibrating communications carefully rather than using the blunderbuss climate activists too often deploy.

The message needs to be tailored to people in different demographies, geographies and political views — right as well as left. There’s nothing inherently left- or right-wing about climate change, but any form of climate action – because it involves allocating scarce resources – is inherently political. Thus, while it’s not enough for climate campaigners to demand that “something” must be done, policy advocates can’t expect to win widespread support with a single, one-size-fits-all message.

For carbon pricing, that means choosing different aspects of the policy to meet different groups’ concerns. Conservatives respond to ideas about economic liberty and free markets: carbon pricing lets individuals choose how to cut emissions and rewards efficiency with dividends. Progressives respond to their perceptions of fairness and justice: dividends tilt the system toward lower‑income households and ensure high emitters carry their share. Moderates respond to balance and pragmatism: carbon pricing makes polluters pay while cushioning those most vulnerable to higher energy costs. For all, the co-benefit is immediate, practical and effective action on climate.

Climate is one big issue, but it needn’t and mustn’t be only one story.