Environmentalists, Turn Your Left Brain Off
New York Magazine recently published a nine-section, 7,300-word essay, The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells, depicting what it might look like if climate change goes unaddressed. Wallace-Wells tells a story of the beginning of the end, crafting a narrative that winds through climate change destroying the global economy, sparking geopolitical conflicts, and ultimately creating an Earth impossible for humans to inhabit. He warns that this is not a far-off, dystopian possible future, but an imminent reality — something that could occur in our or our children’s lifetimes.
Wallace-Well’s article took the internet by storm. It created a backlash among some in the environmental advocacy community, sparking criticism of the use of fear (“disaster porn”) and doomsday scenarios to motivate people to act. Scientists also critiqued the studies he used and the conclusions drawn from them. Wallace-Wells also had a number of people in his corner, defending his piece and the importance of telling the truth and a story about the very real possibility we might live to see.
For more than a week after the article was published, commentary, reflections, opinions, and debate about its thesis and tone took up a sizable percentage of the published conversation about climate change. David Wallace-Wells’ argument got more airtime than the French president’s environmental commentary, news about the Great Barrier Reef, and Al Gore’s Inconvenient Sequel.
Moreover, the David Wallace-Wells article was the fourth-most shared category of climate change content over the 10 days after its publication, behind the massive iceberg calving, environment-related conversations at the G-20, and California’s cap and trade extension.
Setting aside, for a moment, the legitimate debates the article spurred about the role of fear in motivating action and the implications of climate science on all of our futures, it’s worth lingering on the reality that a single article drove such significant attention. It demonstrates that it is possible, given the right voice at the right time in the right venue, to capture a narrative. And that, in turn, creates opportunities for advocates to expand and leverage a narrative to advance organizational and movement goals. Opportunities that shouldn’t be squandered.
Back in March, I wrote an article laying out a way forward for environmentalists. It consisted of discussions around litigation, communications, and local policy solutions. Even during these challenging political times, such solutions can help create a better environmental future. Facts alone won’t move people. It is critical that advocates tell people-centered stories to motivate and inspire action.
I stand by that argument. We will not win hearts, minds, policy, or progress on the basis of litigating the facts. However, Wallace-Wells raises a separate interesting question related to the role of facts and science: how do we balance telling the disheartening facts about the world’s future with the need to share the optimistic, inspiring stories about what is possible?
Taking a look at the news cycle for the past 10 days, there are two radically different worlds depicted. One narrative shows a dire situation: the Earth is the hottest it has ever been in history, massive icebergs are breaking off from Antarctica, and the President of the United States has embarrassingly walked away from the planet’s most important climate agreement. Meanwhile, a parallel view shows California has renewed its historic cap-and-trade program, electric vehicles are becoming mainstream in the next decade, Tesla and Volvo are investing in green cars, and mayors across America have pledged their commitment to the emission cut targets outlined in the Paris Accords.
As communicators and advocates, which reality do we embrace to move the needle on environmental issues? Do we use facts, data, and science to motivate people or embrace optimism, inspiring stories, and news of breakthrough technologies?
The short answer is to go for the heart and not only the mind. Time and time again, behavioral scientists have shown that facts alone are not as persuasive as emotions (see, for example: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds, Why People Fly from Facts, and How Facts Backfire). Ironically, the same people that would use facts to try to persuade climate change skeptics are ignoring the facts on how to persuade people.
In our communications work, that means we tend to tell stories about people in order to bring the data and facts to life. In the context of Wallace-Wells’ piece, even if his dire view of reality is accurate, it’s not the story we should share. Instead of telling the young, motivated environmentalist that climate change is irreversible and we’ve already passed the point of no return, we tell them the story about the future of electric cars or alternative energy.
Note: This is not a call to ignore facts. That’s dangerous in a movement rooted in science. We need scientists to give us an understanding of the problem, the solution, and even how to get there. The role of the communicator is to then tell the stories necessary to move us toward that future.
The facts are on our side. And our instinct is to use a logical, reasoned, left-brained approach to make our case. That would be a mistake. The reality is facts don’t change minds; hearts do. For environmental advocates, this means we need to turn off our left brains and tug on the heartstrings.
Hillary Moglen is a Principal at RALLY, a communications firm that works to influence the way people think about and respond to political and social issues.
