Search Climate Insights Directory

The study compared 1,493 Swedish forest owners who participated in climate communication projects with a random sample of 909 owners. It found that targeted communication significantly increased climate change awareness, concern, and the intention to take adaptive measures by influencing subjective risk perceptions and beliefs in personal ability. Additionally, the research noted that direct experience with extreme events drives adaptation intentions regardless of whether the individual attributes those events to climate change, and it identified social norms and economic rationales as potential barriers to individual adaptation.

The research examines the emotional drivers of climate mobilization, finding that hope motivates engagement in climate-friendly behaviors and advocacy, while doubt and skepticism act as barriers to collective action. It suggests that communication strategies focusing on success stories and achievable goals can sustain momentum for mitigation and adaptation.

The report finds that while education levels influence the types of questions people have about climate change and their initial perceptions of NASA, the NASA climate change website is accessible to all education levels and effectively improves perceptions of NASA's competency and trust, particularly for those with less formal education. While the website did not eliminate pre-existing knowledge gaps, it helped less-educated visitors learn more and increased their certainty regarding the reality and impacts of climate change.

The report examines climate change perceptions among regular viewers and listeners of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NPR, the Weather Channel, and national nightly network news. It finds significant divergence in beliefs regarding human-caused global warming, particularly within the Fox News audience, while noting a general desire for more information across most news audiences.

The research compares Swedish forest owners who participated in Swedish Forest Agency communication projects against a randomly sampled control group to evaluate how such communication influences climate change awareness and the likelihood of taking adaptive actions.

The guide argues that talking about climate change is essential for societal change and recommends the 'REAL TALK' framework, which prioritises mutual respect, open-ended questions, and personal storytelling over statistics and blame to build connections and encourage engagement.

The document outlines a communication strategy for discussing climate change with friends and family, emphasizing the importance of targeting moderate individuals, finding shared values, and focusing on scientific consensus and hope rather than alarmism to motivate action.

The report finds that 72% of Americans believe global warming is happening, with 59% attributing it to human activities. While 66% express worry and 64% believe it affects U.S. weather, there is a significant gap in understanding the scientific consensus, with only 22% aware that over 90% of climate scientists agree on human-caused warming. Personal experience with climate effects is reported by 46% of respondents, and a majority perceive extreme weather as a risk to their local communities.

The report finds that while 53% of Americans support climate activists, only 33% believe such advocacy influences elected officials. There is a significant gap between willingness to act—such as 51% who would vote for a candidate based on their climate position if asked by a respected peer—and actual behavior, with only 11% having contacted an official in the past year. Trust in public figures like Bill Nye and Greta Thunberg is high among those familiar with them, and these figures are seen as potential catalysts for mobilizing climate campaigns.

The November 2019 survey indicates that 72% of Americans believe global warming is happening, with 59% attributing it to human activities. While 66% express worry and 64% believe it affects U.S. weather, social engagement remains low, as 59% rarely or never discuss the topic with family and friends. There is a notable gap in understanding scientific consensus, with only 22% aware that over 90% of climate scientists agree on human-caused warming.

The report finds that while 53% of Americans support climate activists, only 33% believe citizen advocacy actually influences elected officials' policy decisions. There is a significant gap between willingness and action: 51% would vote for a candidate based on their global warming position if asked by a respected peer, but only 11% actually contacted an official in the past year. Trust in public figures varies, with Bill Nye and Greta Thunberg being among the most trusted sources of information. Political affiliation strongly correlates with support and participation, with Democrats showing the highest levels of activism and efficacy.

Based on an April 2019 national survey, the document finds that Americans generally underestimate the proportion of their fellow citizens who believe global warming is happening, with an average estimate of 54% compared to an actual figure of 69%. This 'pluralistic ignorance' is more pronounced among conservative Republicans and rural residents, while liberal Democrats and more educated individuals are more accurate. The report argues that perceiving a greater social consensus correlates with more pro-climate views and a higher frequency of discussing the topic with friends and family, suggesting that correcting these misperceptions can increase support for climate policies.

The report finds that Americans significantly underestimate the percentage of their fellow citizens who believe global warming is occurring, with an average estimate of 54% compared to an actual figure of 69%. This gap, termed pluralistic ignorance, is most pronounced among conservative Republicans and rural residents, while liberal Democrats and highly educated individuals are more accurate. The findings suggest that correcting these misperceptions can increase willingness to discuss climate change and increase support for climate policies.

The report analyzes data from 2017 to 2019 to determine if younger Americans are more concerned and engaged with global warming than older generations. It finds that while Millennial Republicans are more likely to accept climate science and worry about global warming than older Republicans—reducing the political divide among youth—actual civic engagement, such as contacting government officials, remains similar across most generations. However, younger generations rank global warming higher as a priority for the 2020 Presidential election than older adults.

The April 2019 'Climate Change in the American Mind' report reveals that 69% of Americans believe global warming is happening, with 55% attributing it primarily to human activities. While 62% express worry about the issue and 60% believe it is affecting U.S. weather, social engagement remains low, as 63% rarely or never discuss it with family and friends. The report also highlights a significant gap in understanding scientific consensus, with only 17% aware that over 90% of climate scientists agree on human-caused warming.

Analysis of survey data from 2013 to 2018 shows a sharp increase in the proportion of Americans who believe global warming is happening, is human-caused, and is a cause for personal and general concern, with these trends appearing across the political spectrum.

Analysis of survey data from 2011-2015 shows that 8% of Americans changed their opinions on global warming, with 84% of those becoming more concerned. The primary drivers for increased concern were direct or reported experiences of climate impacts and increased information, while those becoming less concerned often cited beliefs that global warming is a natural process or a hoax.

The guide outlines strategies for climate communication in low- and middle-income countries, emphasizing the need to frame climate action as a tool for poverty reduction and sustainable development. It advocates for 'co-production' of knowledge, the use of diverse messengers, and the application of social marketing techniques to drive policy and behavioral change. Key recommendations include using 'demonstration effects' to show tangible resilience solutions, employing data visualization and mapping to make invisible risks visible, and leveraging ICTs to amplify under-represented voices. The document also addresses the importance of scientific accuracy when attributing extreme weather events to climate change and warns against the financial risks of 'stranded assets' in fossil fuel-dependent economies.

The document serves as a practitioner's guide for communicating climate change in developing nations. It emphasizes moving away from scientific jargon toward narratives that highlight the benefits of climate-compatible development, particularly for the poor. The guide outlines strategies for targeting diverse audiences—including governments, businesses, and the general public—and advocates for the use of 'demonstration effects' and data visualization to make climate risks tangible. It includes numerous case studies from Africa, Asia, and Latin America illustrating successful interventions such as participatory mapping, community radio, and the use of 'stranded assets' as a policy framework.

The document outlines a framework for effective climate communication in developing countries, emphasizing the need to link scientific data with local lived experiences. It provides guidance on audience segmentation, the use of 'demonstration effects' for adaptation solutions, and framing mitigation as an economic opportunity. The guide includes numerous case studies from regions such as India, Kenya, Peru, and Bangladesh, illustrating the use of creative tools like participatory theater, citizen mapping, and role-playing games to engage policymakers and marginalized groups.