The way climate change and the need for concerted action is communicated often takes place with an expert scientific and technological frame of reference. Kristian Noll argues that for climate communication to be effective, religious understandings of climate change cannot simply be ignored.

Talking about climate change rarely leaves us feeling hopeful. On a certain level, this is understandable; recent reports reveal that the last three years have been the warmest on record, extreme weather events are happening more frequently and with greater ferocity, and policymakers seem unable to rise to the challenge of confronting the crisis with the urgency many feel it deserves. The UN Secretary General is not wrong to warn us that ‘climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning.’

But how are we supposed to react to this statement? If what we are witnessing is merely the beginning of unbelievable suffering, why can’t we seem to enact meaningful legislation to curb emissions? Why, despite recent studies indicating that the vast majority of citizens globally support government action on climate change, has ‘the climate’ seemingly become a partisan issue? Insofar as climate change is fundamentally a human challenge, perhaps the answer lies in that which forms the bedrock of human interaction: communication.

the failure of environmentalists to craft a compelling counternarrative partially explains the stalemate we find ourselves in.

Much has been written about how communication and storytelling impact receptiveness to environmental initiatives. We are well acquainted with the successes of misinformation and disinformation campaigns, but ample analyses also suggest that the failure of environmentalists to craft a compelling counternarrative partially explains the stalemate we find ourselves in. We thus face a persistent question: how can climate change communication be improved? One need not search long to find a plethora of reports, handbooks, and articles delineating a precise methodology for communicating climate change more effectively. We are advised to be more confident, tell a more compelling story, use accessible language, be hopeful, and lead with what you know. But, truly reforming climate communications should not just be about how expertise can be more effectively conveyed; it must also be about ensuring participants in these vital conversations are sufficiently aligned in their perceptions and experiences of the climate crisis to enact meaningful change. Too often, this is not the case.

Over the past three years, part of our research at the LSE Religion and Global Society unit has explored how climate change is perceived and discussed in local communities in Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, and the UK. Our work, which comprised months of ethnographic fieldwork as well as the convening of international workshops with policymakers and grassroots climate activists, found that global discussions about climate change conspicuously and wrongfully exclude a key ingredient in fostering environmental action: religion.

Our work ~ found that global discussions about climate change conspicuously and wrongfully exclude a key ingredient in fostering environmental action: religion.

This may be a surprising assertion; after all, religious adherence is often correlated with climate denial, and inserting faith into public policy discourses may run afoul of a deeply-embedded aspiration to keep religion and politics separate. However, our research on climate revealed something profound. Attempting to engage communities in Egypt and Jordan in discussions about environmental change using the language of global climate diplomacy – think concepts like ‘1.5 degrees’ and ‘the Paris Agreement’– ultimately failed. Even as rising temperatures and water shortages (both consequences of climate change) were considered acute issues in these communities, we were told that climate change was a Western problem to be solved by Western elites. What became clear in this apparent contradiction was while the reality of a climate crisis wasn’t being rejected, our language of solving ‘climate change’ didn’t resonate with the vernacular used to make sense of these changes locally. Religion, on the other hand, did.

Where political and scientific language led to dismissiveness, approaching the crisis as a matter of ethics, morality, and theology – for instance, by situating an individual’s moral and ethical responsibility to God’s creation at the centre of discussions – proved a remarkably powerful entry point for dialogue in two ways. First, the discussions opened, allowing workshop participants to lead discussions using a language more understandable and relevant within their local contexts. Second, centring religion gave the discussions a more hopeful, future-oriented frame of reference than the uncertain and pessimistic tone our politics often adopts.

centring religion gave the discussions a more hopeful, future-oriented frame of reference than the uncertain and pessimistic tone our politics often adopts

Importantly, the profound influence of faith in climate discourses is neither limited to Egypt and Jordan nor to our research. A quick Google search will reveal numerous reports and articles about faith increasingly underpins and sustains global climate action. Take for example the leadership of faith communities in countering exploitative development practices in Latin America, the impact of the Pope’s unprecedented interventions in the international climate debate, and the importance of Islamic finance on climate adaptation in the Middle East. Looking towards the future, the intersection between faith and climate change will only become more important as the climate crisis worsens, particularly because the areas of the globe projected to be most impacted by climate change are also the most religious. How will the global scientific community productively engage with these communities if the key legislative and political framework excludes the narratives and language most important in these contexts?

Addressing the ‘perception gap’ and distrust plaguing our environmental discourses indeed compels us to be better at communicating, but our research suggests we are going about this in the wrong way. Ignoring the profound influence of religious and spiritual imaginations on the experience of climate change will only impinge environmental progress and deepen impressions of exclusion.

Allow me to offer three recommendations for improving our climate communication:

First, we should assume that communities we seek to engage may be acutely aware of the effects of climate change but experience and communicate these changes through a different vernacular than global (Western) policymakers.

Second, it is important to decentralise discussions and re-cast the traditional dichotomy of expert and learner. Practically speaking, we must ensure environmental discussions are less about presenting knowledge and more about understanding the experiences of those in the room.

Third, allowing individuals to bring their religion back into the discussion can powerfully shift the impetus for environmental action from the political collective to the moral and personal, thereby creating a more compelling and hopeful call for collective action.

The content generated on this blog is for information purposes only. This Article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

Image Credit: Jack B on Unsplash.