The language we use to describe things in almost any area of life, impacts our perceptions, decisions and actions. We could frame dogs as ‘man’s best friend’ or as self-sufficient pack animals – two entirely different ways looking at the same subject. Imagine then, how powerful framing can be when applied to big global challenges like climate change – particularly when used by people with a large public platform.
Environmental framing has been around for decades. Even ‘climate change’ was first used as an alternative framing to ‘global warming’ that would be perceived as more gradual and natural, and less focused on human influence. And it is not only how something is framed which matters, but by whom. Public figures have huge potential to influence environmental engagement but need to use framing tailored to their unique position and public perceptions.
Between 2021 and 2022, I conducted an academic study of environmental framing at the Cambridge Centre for Social Innovation. The study used a framing lens to analyse how ‘urgent optimism’ framing is used by public figures, drawing on my experience working with Prince William and Sir David Attenborough to create The Earthshot Prize.
Urgent optimism framing draws on the urgency of planetary crises, combined with optimism that collective action and human ingenuity can help tackle them, and is based on the hypothesis that urgency + pessimism = despondency, but urgency + optimism = action. As someone with extensive experience designing campaigns to tackle social and environmental issues, the combination of academic research and practical application has given me a few lessons I often come back to.
Achieving mass appeal requires balance – but nothing is fixed. Framing that combines urgency and optimism aims to bridge political and cultural divides to appeal to as many people as possible. At the ‘urgency’ end of the spectrum there are fatalists (“it’s too late, we’re doomed”) and at the ‘optimism’ end there are climate deniers (“there is no crisis, everything is fine”). Public figures often need to bridge these divides to unite large majorities – most of whom sit somewhere in the middle – around positive change.
But this balance is not cut-and-paste formula – I would even argue that narratives often have a sell-by date. Not only is climate change happening in real time, but culture is constantly shifting – the evolving way we consume media can make as much difference as macro-global issues like war and economic crises. All of these factors influence how we interpret framing.
In the face of a climate-related disaster (such as the recent California wildfires), using overly positive messaging might come across as naive at best, or greenwashing at worst. Anger, fear and sympathy all have a place when the context demands it, and public figures who ignore or distract from this can come across as out of touch. On the other hand, sometimes people need hope, so constant pessimism and catastrophising could also make people disengage.
There’s a fine line between inspiration and hero-worship. Interestingly, while environmental framing often aims to bring about collective action, the fact that public figures exist, with an elevated social position and platform, shows that our society listens to ‘exceptional’ individuals. But this can undermine the nature of what is needed to tackle climate change – a few exceptional heroes are not going to save us, but collective action and systems change might.
So how do we achieve the right balance between the need for collective action, and the capacity of public figures to inspire as individuals? Public figures should be seen to work with others, representing a collective movement. It’s also important to inspire with actions that can be replicated, rather than curating a ‘perfect’ lifestyle that is impossible to achieve.
Framing can inspire real action. When public figures use framing that combines urgency and optimism, they are not just aiming to set the backdrop for environmental action, but to directly shift attitudes and behaviours.
This doesn’t necessarily mean telling people to fly less or recycle more. In fact – lecturing people on what to do is risky, particularly if it comes from someone with power and privilege. What is often needed is momentum-building for solutions. When it comes to climate change, solutions are out there, but they need mass support to make a tangible impact. This is where public engagement can really be leveraged: to build widespread support for innovation, from products to policies.
Of course, these lessons attempt to distil years of research and experience. The reality is that leveraging public influence to inspire and engage audiences is highly nuanced and subject to a multitude of changing factors. When context shifts, the way we frame an issue must respond to that.
Rachel Moriarty
Rachel Moriarty is a senior leader with over 12 years’ experience designing and running large-scale initiatives that benefit people and planet. She has led the creation of major projects including The Earthshot Prize, the Design Council’s Green Skills Mission, Conservation International’s Mountains to Mangroves and the mental health work of The Prince and Princess of Wales.
