When social media meets climate change
Understanding online global warming engagement
Twitter is a hellscape. Publications as diverse as the New York Post and the tech website Motherboard have used that phrase to describe the social media platform. Twitter’s biggest competitor, Facebook, has earned equivalent ire, as evidenced by Wikipedia’s lengthy page entitled “Criticism of Facebook.” Yet, despite such strident hand wringing, we clearly have a love-hate relationship with these outlets. Facebook logged 21.18 billion visits and Twitter totaled 4.02 billion visits in March 2019 alone.
When it comes to environmental issues, companies recognize the value of both of them and similar social media. According to a March 22 article on Grist.com, “In the four weeks leading up to the 2018 midterm elections, the five oil majors spent $2 million on targeted ads on Facebook and Instagram aimed at eroding support for environmental initiatives.”
To counter well-heeled interests, the green movement needs to figure out the best way to use this influential media. Based on some studies from over the past half-decade, here’s a rudimentary road map on how to navigate social media’s often bumpy boulevards.
Don’t oversell social media as a hub for climate change discourse
When it comes to social media chatter, climate change is no Game of Thrones. In fact, an analysis done between May 2017 and May 2018 found that more people were seriously talking about the dating app Tinder on such social platforms as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube than they were discussing climate change and the environment generally combined. Amazon was 20-times more popular than those two subjects.
That said, these sites serve the greatest value in organizing. When kids in 112 different countries planned a coordinated mid-March school walkout to bring attention to climate change, social media was essential.
“Schools in Australia weren’t allowed to endorse the strikes, so social media was the best way for us to actually reach out to people,” a 14-year-old Sydney climate activist named Ambrose Hayes told Wired.
It may not be face-to-face, but the person-to-person social media contact for activism is robust.
Deniers aren’t as common as you might think
Though some of us wake up in a cold sweat thinking about Twitter trolls, they are more nightmares than reality when it comes to climate change. An Oxford University study in November found that only 4 percent of Tweets on global warming and 1 percent of Facebook posts on the topic were “intentionally ‘polarising and conspiratorial’ content.”
“Given how polarising this issue is in the mainstream politics, it would have been easy to assume that social media is awash in climate sceptic content,” said Dr. Vidya Narayanan, the researcher on the report. “Contrary to such expectation, however, our findings indicate that mainstream dialogue on these platforms embraces the scientific consensus.”
Still, environmentalists should engage doubters
The group of people dismissing climate change may be small but it definitely exists. A Yale University survey put that number at 9 percent. Plus, they found another 9 percent that deemed themselves as “doubtful” on global warming. While that’s a definite minority, engaging with them can effect change, according to a study from a team of University of Pennsylvania researchers.
The group showed a NASA graph forecasting Arctic sea-ice levels through 2025 to 2,400 Republicans and Democrats on social media. Initially, 40 percent of the Republicans and 26 percent of Democrats misread the data. When the participants weren’t allowed to interact with those holding opposing views, very few incorrect opinions changed. But with bipartisan discussion, understanding improved dramatically.
“We all expected polarization when Republicans and Democrats were isolated,” said lead author Damon Centola. “But we were amazed to see how dramatically bipartisan network could improve participants’ judgments.”
The key caveat to these results, Centola added, was that if bipartisan discussion included representations of party politics (like putting a donkey next to a Democrat on-screen), a willingness to listen to those with different beliefs diminished greatly. So, it’s essential to avoid coming across as partisan.
Who is best-positioned to be social media climate change warriors?
There’s little doubt that fame confers social media power on this topic. For example, back in 2016, when Leonardo DiCaprio mentioned climate change in his Oscar acceptance speech, it led to a spike in global warming discussion on Twitter and, as DiCaprio continued to speak on the subject, he retained a role as a major influencer on that platform, according to one study. (Though he has a very different perspective, Donald Trump was the top influencer on global warming in the same 2017 report.)
For those without big-name recognition, the fewer degrees of separation from the glitterati, the more likely you are to gain attention on climate change. For instance, Dr. Michael E. Mann is a rare climate expert who gains traction on Twitter. The researchers found that his success was predicated on being “connected to a large part of the most important users in the overall network,” who tend to “communicate with each other.”
To truly maximize an environmental message, find a way to get in the ear of an A-lister.
How to speak when you do engage
Understandably, it’s not always feasible to get DiCaprio retweeting your thoughtful statements on global warming. That doesn’t mean you should pack in your keyboard. Instead, environmentalists should press forward — while following best practices offered by studies.
You certainly don’t need to have a Ph.D. to contribute. It might be surprising, but little climate change discourse on social media comes from scientific work. The aforementioned Oxford study found that just 2 percent of Twitter content and 3 percent of Facebook posts feature technical source material. Nevertheless, research suggests this is probably a good thing.
Experts tend to use what’s known as the deficit model. This form of communication focuses on filling in people’s knowledge deficit with facts and offering them in sobering terms to emphasize how serious the risks, if ignored. But in our current age, the deficit model is often unsuccessful. “By dramatizing the facts and suggesting that people who don’t share [the same] level of concern are irrational and delusional, [a writer] is far more likely to offend readers than to convince them,” explained one journalist.
Instead, follow three steps: Be positive and personal and talk about the weather. As one paper indicates, posts should be upbeat — the more gloom-and-doom, the quicker readers disengage. Personalizing tweets cuts down on the psychological divide between the reader and the writer. You can do this with pictures, touching anecdotes or by discussing events that directly impact the reader. Finally, talking weather is a valuable touch point on Twitter. That news peg always increases social media conversation on this topic.
While these studies are a start, admittedly, newer data may paint a different picture. After all, The Atlantic decreed in mid-March, “climate change is a high-profile national issue again.” So, while environmentalists should recognize that social media isn’t currently the end-all, be-all vehicle for messaging, that newfound prominence may very well change the whole landscape.
