Notes are just that: Short, informal messages, or brief records of points or ideas written down. The views and opinions expressed in my notes do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of my employer or clients.
Strategic communication and climate activism
‘Stop fossil fuel subsidies’
That was the rallying cry from climate activists in the Netherlands throughout most of 2023. A straightforward and compelling message that made a significant impact. It garnered support from an unusually broad coalition within civil society, extending well beyond the core climate change activist community.
This message serves as a call to action and is specific. Yet it is sufficiently generic and neither prescriptive nor does it assign blame. These are critical elements for making an impact and reaching a wide audience.
The message is simple. However, the actual process of phasing out subsidies, tax benefits, and other measures that support the use of fossil fuels is anything but simple. A debate and numerous reports have highlighted that even defining what constitutes a fossil fuel subsidy is not a simple task. Prescribing a specific approach to tackle the complexity would thus inevitably dilute this impact, as there are always multiple paths forward, and the choice among them is inherently political. Some may advocate for market-based solutions, while others may favor regulatory measures. Likewise, assigning blame can create divisions in a similar manner. The message is also just right in scope. A message that is overly broad, such as 'Save the Planet,' can foster a sense of unattainability, whereas a call that is overly specific, like 'Adjust the Tariff of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism,' may only be understood by a narrow audience of specialists. Finding the right balance is crucial for engaging a broader audience effectively.
In short, ‘Stop Fossil Fuel Subsidies” was an excellent slogan. And then, they wasted it.
One message, one goal!
Already during the highly successful period of the climate protests, elements within the movement advocated for more politically charged or specific messages. For example, some attempted to frame climate change solely as a gender issue, or they blamed it on, or even equated it with, colonialism or capitalism. Others advocated for specific technologies like nuclear power or proposed radical policy solutions. However, the overall message and the size of the crowds were sufficient to incorporate these diverse voices - showing the power of a well crafted message.
Then, 7 October 2023, happened. A terror attack by Hamas on Israel followed by a heavy-handed military response prompting many to take to the streets in protest.
The climate marches and protests merged with the pro-Palestine protests, immediately politicizing them. As a result, the broad support for climate activism narrowed down to the intersection in the Venn diagram between the pro-Palestine crowd and the climate change advocates. The clear and simple message turned into a cacophony of voices, and the impact dwindled.
Let me be clear: I firmly believe in the necessity of climate activism. However, its focus should be on generating tangible impacts rather than catering to the virtue-signaling desires of a small subgroup. Both peace and climate change are critical issues. However, merging these causes into a single protest doesn't result in mutual reinforcement. Instead, it leads to a dilution of the message and a decrease in support.
Methods matter
We need climate activism, including, at times, civil disobedience. However, the methods of civil disobedience matter when it comes to strategic communications and achieving impact.
Blocking a main road near the Parliament and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate, as done several times last year, is a tactic that aligns with the message, targets the intended audience, and generally finds broad support. Blocking a highway near the former (!) headquarters of a bank with a questionable climate change record is more challenging to justify (why not target the bank's current headquarters?). Destroying art in museums is a protest method that it is simply misguided and stupid.
This trend of activists attacking famous artworks to draw attention to (mostly) climate and environmental issues employs the slogan 'There is no art on a dead planet.' However, this is not a message that will lead to meaningful impact (beyond social media interactions). I was planning to write a rant about the folly of damaging art to communicate climate urgency, but Tinkerbell, a Dutch artist, beat me to it with a post titled 'kunstwerken slopen voor het klimaat' (destroying artwork for the climate).
Her main argument aligns closely with my point on strategic messaging and the need for a broad coalition: Those not interested in art can use this destruction as a reason to delegitimize climate policy and activism in general. Meanwhile, those interested in art are overwhelmingly already in favor of policies to preserve the planet for future generations. Thus, these actions only alienate supporters and provide ammunition to opponents of the cause. Moreover, in response to these actions, museums must implement additional security measures that will diminish the visitor’s experience and incur extra costs in a sector already facing structural underfunding, with many full-time workers living below the poverty line. She concludes with a great oneliner:
Those who want change need the arts.
Postscriptum
Why devote a rather lengthy issue of notes to the strategic messaging of climate activists? First, because I support the call for ambitious climate policies and societal changes towards a more sustainable future. Second, because I often find myself envying the activist communities for their clear and simple slogans. For years, as a manager/ lobbyist in social science and governance research, I have struggled (largely unsuccessfully) to develop effective messaging for social science knowledge. My challenge wasn't so much about having a message and maintaining cohesion within the movement around that message, but rather about distilling a compelling message from the cacophony of different schools of thought, academic disciplines, and individual ivory towers. I plan to elaborate on this struggle in a future issue of notes.