1. understand that climate change happens at a scale that is beyond human perception.

in a similar fashion to the covid-19 pandemic, climate change is an intangible enemy that we as humans can not perceive as a whole. we cannot touch or see it, nor can we solve it with one end-all-be-all quick fix. we can experience some of the hints of climate change, such as extreme weather events, but we will never know the full impact of how our actions impact the climate on a spatial and temporal scale beyond human limits. in his keynote, john sutter described his documentary project baseline that may bring a creative solution to this problem. by following five children over a span of 30 years, we will be able to see changes in climate before our eyes in the form of film.

2. know the needs and values of your audience.

to some people the climate crisis feels like a wave of impending doom and to others, it feels like white noise in the background of their lives. both of these feelings are valid. to tell the climate story, it is important to understand the specific communities and forums that you are trying to reach. everyone has different values and experiences, and it is important to keep those in mind as you are crafting your story.

3. bring people into the conversation instead of casting them out.

telling the climate story in a way that is positive and hopeful will promote change far more than negativity ever will. in his keynote, al roker talked about the story of climate change as one of hope and that people are capable of changing their minds about climate change when they are equipped with the correct tools. it is important to stress that it is not too late to make a difference!

4. interdisciplinary collaborations can lead to innovation and impact.

climate change is not just for climate scientists! the most effective storytelling happens when different people with different backgrounds work together. working with a variety of professionals such as journalists, advocates, artists, and more can bridge connections and create effective stories.

5. the environment needs you.

real changes happen when we take our unique skills and work together. it is important to understand that everyone has something meaningful to add when it comes to protecting our environment. we need to ensure that we listen and encourage diverse ideas from all communities. it takes all of us to make a difference!

as a child, this was my space. the orchards were my playground. i would spend afternoons with my great grandma at the fruit stand. we would count the cars by color as they passed by. i grew up in a house situated between my grandfather and my great-grandparents. they built the orchards i found refuge in and cultivated the land i called home.

place attachment is fundamental to developing environmental attitudes. connection to place is the emotional connection an individual feels toward their surroundings. this is often developed through childhood interactions and life experiences. the deeper the place attachment, the more likely a person is to be concerned about their local environments.

it can be easy to imagine place connections in rural areas where you are “closer” to nature. but not everyone grew up on an orchard (like me), in the woods, or on a farm. everyone experiences place connections in different ways regardless of where they live.

even though cities may seem vastly different from the countryside, there are some key similarities in how we relate to our surroundings. our inherent affinity toward the natural world can extend beyond cultural reservations. though many may be hesitant at first, good environmental education programs and citizen science initiatives can help people feel connected to their natural communities no matter where they are. a better understanding of local ecology will give people the confidence to stand up for environmental protection in their communities. 

currently, most citizen science programs are directed at studies of local ecology. these are beneficial on their own, but they also create possibilities for new types of engagement. we can adapt citizen science to environmental justice projects. programs that teach people how environmental issues personally affect their communities can help people get a broader understanding of the importance of these issues in their neighborhoods and can help them make connections with other people who want to make their community a safer, healthier, and more enjoyable place to live. if we nurture our place connections and learn how they relate to our local ecologies and environmental issues, we can all become powerful advocates for the environment.

once we understand our own connections, we can connect with our neighbors. the people we live near often have a similar sense of attachment to place. we often share many of the same values and concerns regarding our local environments. personal actions to save the environment are great. reducing our own carbon footprint with eco-friendly methods is a good practice to keep, but we know it will not end climate change. additionally, governments change rapidly and bend to the whim of money and politics. they have consistently proven themselves unwilling to meet the demands of climate change mitigation.

so, what can we do? we can heal our environment through community efforts. collective place attachment and community empowerment can uplift people to take direct action in helping their local environments. citizen science initiatives can be used to increase place attachment and build community efforts. a system of community-lead organizations to support local environments that interact with and learn from one another can develop a grassroots initiative uniquely tailored to regions with a disregard for political borders. we have the potential to create a global matrix of communities working to protect the environment. 

hosted by frank sesno, healthy you: surviving a pandemic is a co-production of the george washington university milken institute school of public health and the school of media and public affairs.

here are our key takeaways from cbs news meteorologist and climate specialist jeff berardelli, cnn health and science unit producer jen christensen, and wnet executive producer eugenia harvey on how to create lasting climate communication that won’t get washed away in the rising tides.

1. value visuals.

when addressing any story as rich in data as climate change, it’s easy to get lost in the numbers. in 2018, berardelli quit his job as a chief meteorologist in south florida to study this data at columbia university’s earth institute. however, when asked about the role of complex science in climate reporting, berardelli said,“i don’t think there needs to be much.” he recommends finding visual, rather than numerical, means of depicting the changes our planet faces. 

in support of this point, berardelli wore a rectangular, blue, white and orange striped pin on his lapel. this graphic, known as the “warming stripe,” clearly and effectively communicates the rate of increase in global temperatures from 1850-2018, without any need for numbers.

2. appeal to your audience.

everyone has a reason to care about climate change. the key is figuring out which reasons are most compelling to your audience. while certain audiences might be alarmed to hear about the rapid rate of species decline, others might be more interested if the issue was framed as an economic one. in that case, the challenges of climate change can be framed as an opportunity for new industry, innovation, and growth.

“everyone cares about money, unfortunately,” berardelli said. “that’s just the reality.”

ultimately, the key to good communication is empathy and the ability to meet people where they are.

“we have to deal with it with kindness and, i think, a lot of compassion,” harvey said.

3. create connections.

a crisis of the environment naturally affects everything in it. a climate story is never just about the environment but stories of all sorts can somehow be brought back to the environment.

“there’s so much intersectionality,” harvey said.

harvey produced the series “freedom to breathe” for pbs in collaboration with climate nexus. according to pbs, the series chronicles the impact of climate change on the daily lives of residents of the southern and southwestern united states “through health, housing and the economy.” harvey was drawn to the project as an opportunity to show the real people impacted by environmental racism.

“i saw black and brown faces that are often not shown in these stories,” harvey said.

climate change can be used as a frame to discuss systemic social issues relating to race and class that often aren’t given — or can’t be given — a place in fast paced news cycles. additionally, a climate-conscious angle can be woven into stories that are primarily about other issues such as medicine, infrastructure, and business. the more climate is discussed in the context of other stories, the more prevalent it becomes in popular consciousness.

“essentially, we have to normalize it,” christensen said.

4. hone in on humanity.

the story of climate change is one of humanity and the most effective stories are the ones that center on people.

christensen, who served as the national president of nlgja, the association of lgbtq journalists, compared the need to represent those suffering from climate change to queer people “coming out” to advocate for gay marriage. once those not affected by the issue realized that people they know and love were being affected, they were likely to experience a shift in perspective. by making audiences aware of the ways those in their community are already impacted by climate change, communicators can accelerate the push for action.

“you have to help people to understand why the rest of the world matters,” christensen said.

christensen, harvey, and berardelli all warned against getting caught up in jargon and terminology that might alienate audiences from the heart of the matter.

“(climate change) is now an entity that is not just being studied, it is being lived. it is being experienced,” harvey said. “we need to stop squabbling over terminology.”

5. root it in reality.

while it might be tempting to get swept up in long-term projections and doomsday scenarios, the most effective climate stories are the ones that are unfolding as we speak. audiences are less likely to question science when they see it in real-time.

the negative impacts of climate change are tangible in health, agriculture, natural disasters, and more. at the same time, realistic climate solutions and innovations are coming out of communities across the country. by demonstrating practical climate cures, storytellers can create hope and empower audiences to play a positive role. 

“life can be better than it is,” berardelli said. “we don’t think about that.”

in addition to writing about climate change, deaton also runs a website called climate chat, which aggregates research on climate change communication. climate chat began as his thesis project in grad school at gw, and now he uses it to keep people informed on the latest research, sending monthly updates via a newsletter.

we recently spoke to deaton about how to overcome the struggles in communicating the gravity of climate change and why climate change denial is a problem in the u.s. 

q: generally, how informed is the american public on climate change and climate issues?

a: i would say that the public is not as informed as scientists and advocates would hope it is. when you look at what people think of the causes of climate change, we are at the point where a little more than half of americans say that humans are causing climate change. but when you break that question down and ask, “do you think humans are the sole cause? do you think humans are the primary cause? do you think that humans are causing climate change, but also nature is causing climate change?” — that is a lot more confusing. and it seems that not enough americans understand that humans are the primary driver of warming. 

q: do the american people have an understanding of the mechanism behind climate change? it can be a relatively abstract concept at times, and what is your feeling on americans understanding of this?

a: i think that people, generally, have a pretty vague understanding of the mechanism of climate change. i think they understand that industrial pollution– pollution of carbon from cars and trucks and planes and factories and power plants–is making the earth warmer. but if you ask people to name as many greenhouse gasses as they can, i imagine that people might say co2, but they wouldn’t get to methane or hydrofluorocarbons or some of the other more obscure gases.

but i also don’t think it’s really important that americans understand the mechanism of climate change. i don’t think they need to understand the nitty-gritty of the science. i think they need to understand the basics — that pollution from cars and trucks and planes and factories and power plants, pollution from agriculture — from specifically raising livestock — pollution from deforestation is warming the planet, and that is a catastrophic risk. 

q: while only 5% of americans, in recent polling, fully deny climate change is occurring. why is there still a relatively large chunk of americans who are not willing to pin climate change on human activity? what do you think the root cause for that is? are there things that are causing that?

a: let me break that answer down into a couple of parts. one, i think it is tempting to divide climate change deniers into these many different groups, depending on what their specific views are… i think it is functionally fine to just group together anyone who denies that climate change is an overwhelming problem that requires an immediate and drastic response. you can just put them all together. if someone acknowledges that the planet is warming but denies that we need to do anything about it, that is functionally the same as someone denying that the planet is warming. 

as for why people would deny the need for drastic action for climate change, i think the answer is tribalism. for 30 years now, fossil fuel companies have been aligning with conservative politicians and conservative media to persuade conservative americans that climate change is a liberal conspiracy to create a global government, and you have gotten to the point where climate denial is a shibboleth for conservative politicians. membership to this group is now contingent upon denying the need to take drastic action to address climate change. it is really hard to change that. it is completely entrenched, and is really hard to form a new norm, particularly when you have all these forces that are reinforcing the current norm. 

i think there has been a lot of time and attention and energy devoted to trying to convert conservatives on climate change. the environmental movement has spent a lot of time and energy and money on that cause in the last couple of decades. and i think that energy would be better devoted to trying to mobilize people who are already inclined to care about the problem. and i think that the movement we’ve seen in public opinion in the last few months or last year, where you see more americans caring about climate change, and it has risen in importance among liberals and democrats, i think it has to do with the fact that you see more movement on the left.

you have charismatic politicians like (alexandria ocasio-cortez) who are making this an issue. you have advocates like the extinction rebellion that are making this an issue, and you are pulling from the left, and it’s having an effect on the whole spectrum of public opinion. you see progressives care about it more, and you see swing voters starting to pay attention. and, as a result, you’ve got republicans starting to — or at least trying to — sound sensible on climate change. mitch mcconnell acknowledges that it’s a thing. i don’t think he should get any credit for that, but i think that it is a result of pulling from the left.     

q: if drastic measures are necessary to make the impact that needs to be made to save the planet and try to mitigate as many problems as possible, wouldn’t you need that percentage of people on the right to be on board, especially when it comes to policy?

a: i think that in our system of government you need consensus to make policy, because of the way electoral votes are distributed across the country and what you need to win a presidential election and because of the way the senate works. you have to win in conservative-leaning states and you have to persuade people in conservative-leaning states because in the senate, at least currently and for the foreseeable future, you need 60 votes to pass anything.

so when i look at that, and i consider that fact, one conclusion you could draw would be that environmental advocates need to win over conservatives. now i think that is a reasonable conclusion, but i think that that is actually much harder than trying mobilizing progressives, mobilizing people to care about this problem. our system of government may be such that it is difficult to pass policy without bipartisan cooperation, but it is easier to imagine democrats taking unified control of government and passing climate policy than it is to imagine that conservatives will come along with that policy.   

q: we talked about what you believe should be done when it comes to tackling this problem of acceptance of the problem and understanding of the problem on a macro level, what about on a micro level? let’s say you are going to thanksgiving and your more conservative family members are there, and climate change comes up. what do you think the best way to deal with a situation like that? you are addressing someone face to face instead of a constituency or instead of a whole population, what would you suggest someone do?  

a: first, i would say, i wouldn’t get your hopes up. even if you are able to persuade someone to care about climate change — and there are a lot of conservatives who do — climate change still ranks pretty low as an issue for conservatives. they are going to vote on issues like terrorism, or fears of immigration, or concerns about national security, and those issues will likely supersede any concerns they have about climate change.

that doesn’t mean you can’t try. if you are going to try, then the way to do it is to make climate change a local and personally relevant problem. there is a lot of research that, in particular, points to the efficacy of highlighting the health risks of climate change.

let’s say you live in arizona, and you have historic heat waves, record-setting heat waves, that are making life miserable and are also a life-threatening risk for elderly people, and the infirm, and children. and those heat waves also make pollution worse, and that pollution is a threat to children. it’s a threat to your kids. it raises the risk of asthma, or it exacerbates existing asthma, those are the kinds of arguments that resonate with people.

one thing i would add to that is that there is a temptation to think that extreme weather on its own is going to change minds about climate change, that when people see and experience severe storms, drought, wildfires, heat waves, that they will be converted by virtue of their experience. but the research tends to suggest that extreme weather does not have a lasting impact on public opinion. people may be more concerned for a short time, but that is not going to convert them over the long term.

the things that do convert people are the efforts of advocates, cues from political elites, and the volume and quality of news coverage. those are the things that tend to change minds. you can point out to that, “hey, scientists say that burning fossil fuels has made this heat wave worse, and is a threat to your health,” and that might make someone more concerned about climate change, but you can’t assume the heat wave will do that on its own. you have to consistently repeat the message. it has to be present in the mind of the person you are talking to. it has to be a salient concern for it to matter.  

q: what science is saying now is that we need to start taking drastic and immediate action, not just in our county, but around the world. do you think that the level of support for something that drastic is possible to get in the timeframe that it needs to happen?

a: i don’t know the answer to that. i am a bit pessimistic, but i will also say i have been surprised by the shift in public opinion the last few months and the last year. so it is certainly possible. but whether or not it is possible doesn’t really have any bearing on what advocates or elected officials do. it has to be done, and we have to make every effort to persuade the public and persuade policymakers… we have no other choice.

q: the first democratic debate was last night, and there was a question about climate change, but there has been some criticism that climate change should be the first and biggest issue that anyone running for president should be addressing, because of the gravity of it. do you think that the issue of climate change should be more elevated in the current campaigns and current political discourse?  

a: yes, absolutely. i think there are moral reasons for that, as you suggested. climate change is the defining issue of our time. it is the biggest issue. it is the literal end of the world, and it is the thing we should be talking about more than anything else. it is also an issue that encompasses every other issue. it is an issue of public health and national security and inequality and injustice and so forth.

in addition to the moral argument, there is a pragmatic argument. across several polls and according to different methods of trying to determine what is important to democrats, we find that climate change is the number two or three ranked issue. it’s something democratic voters want to talk about. it is something democratic voters care about.

at the first debate, i think that moderators waited more than an hour to ask the first question about climate change, and the questions weren’t great. they were questions that tend to focus on the politics of climate change instead of the policy of climate change. i think that journalists who are going to be asking politicians about climate change, particularly in a debate setting, should understand this is something that democratic voters want to talk about. 

i like to do a little thought experiment sometimes when i think about the news coverage of climate change. we know that climate change is a problem that threatens the health and safety and lives of hundreds of millions of people — billions of people over generations. and we know that it is a problem that demands a world war ii-scale mobilization to solve. that’s a comparison scientists have used again and again. so we have a problem on the order of world war ii. are we talking about this problem the way that we would talk about world war ii? are we talking about this problem the way we would talk about the threat of japanese imperialism or nazi fascism? no, and we should be.

what would that actually look like? climate change would be the first question in the debate, and then the next 12 questions would also be about climate change, and they would be substantive questions about what candidates would actually do to solve the problem. 

the problem is, science has always been framed as a story of the big dogs. there’s a cultural misunderstanding that science belongs to the nobel type with a stiff white coat in a sterile lab. the cure for cancer is important stuff, but while they’re working on that, let’s pan the camera to joe who lives around the corner and just figured out how to power his house with a stream in the backyard. or susan from the town over, who rebounded a keystone frog population from close to extinction. not everyone will think these stories or people are interesting, but the ones that do will be inspired to create their own similar stories. enough of these types of stories have the potential to create an intertwining web of like-minded people with the same goal. is that better than a headline that grabs the attention of millions and then drifts into the cloud? maybe, maybe not. it’s comparing apples to oranges. but the story of an average person doing something phenomenal is much more relatable.

alaska was a place where local stories circulated almost as well as the ocean currents. yet, many alaskans live in complete isolation. the stories they share are all different but relatable because of their intense connection to the land. we can learn from this type of storytelling and reproduce it elsewhere by drawing this innate connection to “home” from people — even city dwellers. making science relatable through characters, scenes, and plot lines that are familiar and lovable can information accessible to even the most uninterested of crowds.

turning on the news, scrolling through my social media feed, or speaking with people from outside of my department can quickly remind me of the divisive world we live in, and that climate change is still, for many, up for debate.

i try to understand where these people are coming from. many of us are removed from facing immediate realities of climate change. we enjoy our climate controlled living spaces, and may not live in areas where impacts are as obvious as others. on top of that, not everyone has been well-educated in the topic, nor has a solid grasp of how to read and interpret scientific data. fake news and profit-driven pseudoscience can confuse people even further. there’s a lot out there, and it can be easy to get lost.

and when there’s a financial stake in the game, it can be tempting to turn a blind eye to any potential negative altercations of a sustaining activity that may be contributing to the problem. no one enjoys confronting the idea that what they’re doing could be harmful, and turning a blind eye is easy and enticing.

as someone who hopes to change the tide and help more people understand the reality of climate change, i often grapple with how i can bridge these knowledge and comprehension gaps for skeptics. to work collectively toward a more eco-friendly future, it’s important to work with, rather than against, as many people as possible, which makes helping skeptics understand the reality of climate change so much more vital.

if you want to know what keeps me up at night, it’s this. and it was something i had really been ruminating even more than usual right before my recent trip to alaska.

the view on climate change in alaska

i had never been to alaska before this trip. i grew up in wisconsin, and then spent roughly 6 years living in the new york city area, while enjoying later stints of time living in denver, paris, and the twin cities. i’ve been fortunate to travel around the country and globe. but alaska was different. very different.

geographical and landscape differences aside, what struck me as the most unique in alaska was the general consensus among people who live there that climate change is real, and it’s happening right now. though i can only speak from my personal experiences, it seemed climate change in alaska was not a political issue nor a subject of debate. rather, it was spoken about matter-of-factly—a striking difference from many places i have visited or lived in (even progressive ones).

this realization begged the questions: how and why are these people so accepting of climate change? and how can they help convince others about about the reality of what’s going on?

slowly, through conversations, i found the answer to my questions. i spoke with naturalists, fishers, national park rangers, native alaskans, local residents, and heard from the lieutenant governor of alaska, gaining tidbits of insight from each, identifying themes and patterns between their stories.

why do alaskans see it differently?

first, it seems they all accept climate change because they see it in their daily lives.

alaska has been called ground zero for climate change—and for good reason. with temperatures rising faster than those of the rest of the country, and obvious fluctuations in precipitation and weather patterns, those i spoke to didn’t seem to deny climate change because to them, it’s quite obvious.

many spoke about changes they’d seen in their own lifetimes: noticeably warmer temperatures, shrinking glaciers that were visible to the eye over short periods of time, increases in snowfall, shifts in frosts and seasons, fluctuations in wildlife populations, and new challenges in agriculture, to name a few.

a glacier bay national park ranger who wishes to remain anonymous told me that since the most recent administration took over, park rangers and pamphlets are unable to speak about global climate change—only changes that are happening in their immediate area.

though obviously a frustrating censorship, i began to wonder if perhaps this approach—speaking about local rather than global change—could actually be useful in fostering change. and that maybe, many who refuse to admit to climate change will be hesitant to do so until they have to face it themselves, or until it starts to interfere with their daily lives or impacts them financially.

communicating about climate change

inspired, i questioned those who lived and worked in alaska about how they suggested speaking with skeptics about climate change. and again, a theme emerged: speak about realities that are changing right in front of you. that way, i realized, there is no room for denial, nor is there need to bring in politics, money, or even science.

what i took most from my entire experience in alaska is that to transform skeptics into believers you have to make climate change real to them.

travel can be perception-changing, and videos, photographs, and data can be effective for some, but for those where facts aren’t enough, maybe, just maybe, their own two eyes, their grocery bills, or the flooding in their backyard will be.

perhaps as scientists, journalists, and advocates, we have to think less “global,” and go more “local.” what i mean by this is instead of the continual broad focus on climate change as an abstract occurrence happening around the world, or in distance places, there should be an increase in talking about climate change as it’s happening within our own communities.

we can start by communicating in our hometown media outlets: documenting sea level rise on our own coasts, reporting on changes in temperature and precipitation that may be obvious in our hometowns, and by shedding light on climate change-related realities that someone may feel at an individual level, whether that be higher prices on local agriculture goods, or changes in air quality around the neighborhood.

i’ve always been one to believe that small changes can cumulatively make a big difference. which is why, from now on, i’m going to make more of an effort to report bigger on a smaller scale, striving to be less negligent of what’s right in front of me. my hope is that this may be a meaningful avenue of change, and potentially result in shifts of perception at a local level, even at times when federal or state regulation may not support it. and maybe now, thanks to the insight i gained from my trip to alaska, i can rest a little easier, now that i know the answers to my questions were—no pun intended—right in front of me all along.

as i took the path to becoming a scientist, i spent the majority of my time investigating miniscule details of those why’s and how’s that began my journey. but as i dove deeper into learning about what keeps the redwoods and critters going, i was also immersed in a community where science, and more importantly, scientists are not to be politically opinionated: neutrality kept the science pure and focused. and it made sense. but then it didn’t make sense.

when i look at redwoods now, i no longer just see the beauty of these tallest trees, but also that redwoods store more carbon dioxide than any other tree. it’s amazing capabilities include:

• ability to have one gene produce multiple characteristics to survive in various environments 

• tall structures to build crowns optimal for photosynthesis

• decay-resistant heartwood

so when there are threats to redwoods, i am no longer saddened solely because of the potential loss of beauty, but also because of the cascading effects it’ll bring to the ecosystem. the long and normalized divide between science and politics have completely separated the people who are making decisions on our environment from the factual information regarding it. you see, politics, while having no informational connections, are as rooted together with science as it is with history. whether it be economically (due to future changes in our access to resources) or socially (with dangers to our health), the future is predicted by science. so when we separate science from politics, the decisions on how we treat our resources and our land are not backed up by the many decades of work went into helping make that decision a right one.

today, the war on science is reaching an inflection point as the mass effects from climate change become apparent. it is no longer just strayed polar bears on melting ice caps some 3,000 miles away. it has become the raging fires, resulting from unprecedented periods of drought, that is covering the once blue skies of california and oregon with ash and smoke, the toxic algae blooms in lake superior due to warming of the water, and the worsening hurricanes increasing in numbers. as scientists, writers, artists, or politicians, we have the responsibility to recognize this and see the action items needed to make the future possible.

standing here today as a scientist and a member of society hoping to see again the awe and wonder of our planet in the future, i recognize that i am as responsible for the authenticity of my science as i am to know its purpose in the world. science should no longer shy away from the politics and be solely directed to other scientists for future discoveries.

take the study of invertebrate fossils for example: through them, we see the story of how marine ecosystems were affected by climate changes over the course of the last 12 million years. that story in turn warns us of how deforestation and continuing usage of nonrenewable energy may deplete the availability of seafood due to ocean acidification. it is not that seafood is an enjoyable meal for many, but that it sustains over a billion people on earth that should alarm us into making sure political decisions based on this science.

masked underneath all the details and jargon, science has a story — one that is much needed to be told in our current state. now is the time to summon our inner lorax and be the storytellers of science for our planet, our future.