I have chosen to complete my climate communications analysis on an article by Mihskakwan James Harper, a scholar from Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation in Treaty 8, which was published by the Yellowhead Institute. The brief, entitled “Can We Achieve Climate Action And Reconciliation In A Post COVID World?” was published in June of 2020, in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. All research and publications on the Yellowhead website are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 Canada License. The Yellowhead Institute is a First-Nation led research centre, focused on policies related to land and governance (Yellowhead Institute). The Institute has five core objectives including:
- Shaping new governance models and supporting governance work in First Nations communities and urban communities
- Influencing policy development and holding governments accountable for policies affecting First Nations
- Contributing to public education on the legal and political relationship between First Nations and Canada
- Facilitating opportunities for, and supporting Indigenous students and researchers
- Building solidarity with non-Indigenous students and researchers (Yellowhead)
Given Yellowhead’s objectives, audiences who access their publications are often involved in policy work (ranging from government to grassroots groups), and academic audiences. The Yellowhead Briefs are organized into four main categories including Indigenous Governance, Social Policy, The Indian Department and Treaties and Rights & Title (Yellowhead). This particular brief is published within the Social Policy category, suggesting that audiences accessing this work may be interested in policy work and, more specifically, policy work in relation to Indigenous governance and land. Likely this audience is seeking resources which can aid in furthering climate change adaptation and mitigation work – both at community and government levels. This audience therefore is in need of climate communication content which can support their own efforts in communicating the climate crisis to key stakeholders at various levels.
Evidence-Based Techniques for Effective Climate Communications
In determining the needs of this particular audience, I am turning to the work of Susan Moser and her 2016 article, “Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say?”. Moser describes a “science-practice gap” in climate communications, noting that practitioners rarely have the time or access to read social science journals, especially within an interdisciplinary field such as climate communication (Moser, 2016, p.356). For the audiences accessing Yellowhead Briefs, some of whom may be frontline, grassroots activists – this tension between time and access to climate communications literature may be a major barrier. Moser offers that in order for the work of climate communication researchers to be effective and impactful, their work “must connect more effectively with those who do most of the talking”, such as the policy-makers and advocates who are likely accessing Yellowhead content. The evidence-based techniques I can suggest for this audience are rooted in this call for climate communications which close the science-practice gap. These techniques are ultimately tools which can be utilized by the audience within their own work, and call for climate communications which can be applied in practice to the work of policy-makers, activists and academics whose audiences range from community members to governments.
1) Offer Opportunities for Localization
Offering individuals involved in policy work and grassroots activism material which demonstrates localized messaging is an important technique which could ultimately be employed in their own work. In the George Mason University primer, “Conveying the Human Implications of Climate Change”, the authors highlight that for many people climate change is an abstract problem which can be understood as a threat “to future generations, but not as a local issue affecting themselves, their family, and their community” (Maibach et al, 2011, p.19). Similarly, Swedish sustainability expert Per Grankvist speaks about the importance of climate change communications being local and personalized, “‘All stories have to be locally anchored. You can’t show someone the story of Malmo and expect it to work in Phoenix’” (O’Sullivan, 2019). For audiences whose work involves communicating the importance of climate adaptation and mitigation efforts, communications pieces which offer localized narratives can be utilized within their own respective fields to effectively connect with stakeholders.
2) Frame for Your Audience’s Values
Providing policy-makers and activists with localized climate communications is vital, however, if the content doesn’t speak to the values of the particular community where the communication piece is delivered, the message may not be effective. This technique is discussed thoroughly by Hodson in “An ecological model of climate marketing: A conceptual framework for understanding climate science related attitude and behavior change”. Quoting Whitmarsh (2011), Hodson notes that climate skepticism “is more likely to be correlated with personal values than with education or demographic levels” (Hodson, 2019, p.3). In practice, this means utilizing “values based messaging”, creating climate communications which are framed to address the values of a specific community in order to be effective (Hodson, 2019, p.15). For the audience this blog post is focused on – I believe this looks like writing values into communications pieces which may be in line with the community members and government officials they are seeking to impact.
3) Offer tangible action and opportunities for climate adaptation
What has become apparent within climate communication research, is that more is needed than knowledge to motivate people towards climate action (Moser, 2016, p.351). As explained by Moser, it is widely recognized that “actions and practical support must be a central part of all climate communication, not necessarily in a prescriptive fashion, but options should be discussed and audiences must see and feel empowered to choose viable options” (Moser, 2016, p.351). Hodson also highlights this, noting that climate communications should empower audiences and be focused on positives (Hodson, 2019. p.5). For practitioners, this means climate communication pieces should offer practical opportunities for climate adaptation measures which can be employed directly within their work.
Analysis
Harper’s brief draws connections between the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change and growth while centring Indigenous perspectives. In just over 1,000 words the brief discusses a significant amount, beginning by detailing the origins of COVID-19 and importance of biodiversity and moving swiftly to describe impacts on the energy sector, calls for industry transformation, Indigenous empowerment, self-determination, and finally reflecting on linking climate action and the prevention of future pandemics (Harper, 2020). Certainly the format, being concise and open-source – satisfies one aspect of the “science-practice” gap described by Moser – as a resource which is easily accessible for audiences, particularly the policy professionals and grassroots activists who read Yellowhead Briefs. The piece largely satisfies the techniques listed above, however it does fall short in some aspects.
The brief is particularly strong in its ability to allow readers to use it as a localized piece of climate communication. Particularly, its connection between human action, climate change and COVID-19 as a health crisis makes it a resource which practitioners can apply locally to communities recovering from/continuing to survive the pandemic. Maibach et al discuss that framing climate change as a public health issue can help to “reveal local angles of a global problem, thereby making the problem more concrete, and moving the location of impacts closer to home” (Maibach et al, 2011, p.19), effectively localizing the issue.
Harper begins the brief by linking viral diseases and the human manipulation of land – framing the health crisis of the pandemic as a product of social and economic development, arguing that they are “outweighed by the disastrous long-term economic and health effects related to viral outbreaks” (Harper, 2020). Harper frames changes to land for resource extraction as factors which increase the success of viruses, stating that the case for biodiversity protection and conservation is no longer just about climate action, but about “the future of human health” (Harper, 2020). This focus on the health risks associated with land use changes made for resource extraction and agriculture are powerful motivators for behavioural change (Maibach et al, 2011, p.20), making this brief a useful tool for audiences to employ in their own work. The practitioners accessing this article can draw from its focus on human health which, as explained by Maibach et al, is “likely to enhance — and sustain — public engagement in the issue of climate change and thereby facilitate meaningful public dialogue about the nature of the problem, our opportunities for solutions, and other ways in which we can benefit by taking action” (Maibach et al, 2011, p.20).
As a First Nation-led Institute focused on policies related to land and governance, it is likely that Harper’s article, which centres “Indigenous perspectives on life and growth”, aligns with the values of those who access the Yellowhead Briefs. If this audience is to use Harper’s brief as a resource within their own advocacy work, its ability to be an effective piece of values based messaging depends on the spaces where it is being applied. If one were to assume that these audiences may need to communicate with individuals who are resistant to climate change adaptation and mitigation measures – Harper presents a valuable message rooted in job security and economic stability. In discussing the impacts of the pandemic, Harper highlights that COVID-19 resulted in negative oil prices, ultimately “forcing the oil economy of Alberta into one of its worst economic conditions it has ever seen” (Harper, 2020). Harper goes on to describe the business case for renewable energy industries, noting that with solar and wind production costs dropping, and power purchase agreements and Feed-in-Tariffs that are multi-year contractual pricing agreements being “less risk averse than the volatile petroleum market”, the “business case” for transition is clear (Harper, 2020). For business and economic-focused audiences, Harper’s framing aligns with best practices found in the Climate & Development Knowledge Network’s 2019 “Communicating climate change: A practitioner’s guide”. The guide notes that for this particular audience, narratives which highlight climate adaptation as a catalyst for “long term prospects for business growth and stability” are proven to be effective (Dupar et al, 2019, p.16). Framing climate adaptation and mitigation as opportunities for economic growth may be an effective tool for audiences accessing this brief to utilize within their own work. As explained by Moser, the values held by individuals affect the “acceptability of anticipated or proposed behavioral changes, technological solutions, or climate policies”, and climate communications can be more effective if approached through “value frames” (Moser, 2016, p.350). Thus, the practitioners reading this brief would be able to utilize its economic framing to connect with stakeholders in their own work who hold similar values.
A potential issue from a values based messaging perspective is the contention around the COVID-19 pandemic for some audiences. While positioning this article from a health risk perspective enables the practitioners utilizing it to produce their own, localized communications – this may not resonate with the values in some communities. Varied reactions to COVID-19 mitigation efforts such as vaccinations and vaccine passports have been seen across the country throughout the pandemic. In an interview with the CBC, Dr. Joseph Hayes, social-personality researcher at the University of Acadia, attributes this to “existential anxiety”, triggering a deep connection to the value of freedom (Chang, 2021). Hayes explains that “‘hesitancy or even some resistance to getting the vaccine’” are actually people “‘affirming the value of freedom’” and feeling the need to “‘defend’” the value of freedom (Chang, 2021).
Having written this brief at the beginning of the pandemic, I am curious to know if Harper may now consider shifting his approach. Similarly, having written their article in 2011 discussing the benefits of framing the climate crisis as a public health risk, I am curious to know how Maibach et al might reflect on varied public reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic. Newer research has surfaced throughout the pandemic detailing the correlation between the responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate crises. An article published in July of 2021 entitled, “Investigating similarities and differences in individual reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate crisis”, found a difference in threat perceptions between COVID-19 and the climate crisis, noting that perceptions of COVID-19 “were only moderately correlated with climate change risk perceptions” and that many perceived the two threats on different time scales, viewing climate change as a distant issue (Geiger at al, 2021, p.13). The authors suggest that communicating about COVID-19 risks “may not necessarily promote awareness of the climate risks”(Geiger et al, 2021, p.14).
A potential failure of this brief is the limitations it may have for the intended audience. Depending on the values of the individuals and communities they are seeking to impact, the connection between COVID-19 and the climate crisis may not be effective. As suggested by Geiger et al, “communication efforts could focus on explaining connections between these risks in a way that is more salient to lay individuals” (Geiger et al, 2021, p.14), which may look like Harper shifting how the brief is framed to better satisfy the values of individuals who may not react well to risk messaging associated with COVID-19.
Harper begins the brief with a motivating call to action: “After taking a step back, we find somewhat obvious overlaps between the ongoing climate crisis, and this pandemic. One more step back, and Indigenous perspectives on life and growth come into view as an interconnected system that presents a clear path forward, all together” (Harper, 2020). Throughout the article are suggestions for climate adaptation measures including the pursuit of renewable energy, an improved relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples where Indigenous peoples are “empowered to exercise their ability to protect and defend these territories, not just for Indigenous rights, or climate action, but to help prevent the next outbreak”, green employment opportunities and increased renewable energy projects. The article offers moments of empowerment and positivity, a key technique for effective climate communications (Hodson, 2019. p.5). For the audiences reading this brief, this likely offers valuable opportunities for climate adaptation which can be communicated within their own policy and advocacy work. One area for improvement would be for the author to go into greater detail about each adaptation measure and offer additional resources for audiences to apply within their own work.
Conclusion
For audiences who access Yellowhead Briefs, mainly individuals involved in policy work and activist work related to Indigenous governance and land, this article provides useful techniques for communicating climate adaptation and mitigation to key stakeholders at various levels. Harper offers climate communication opportunities for localization through the COVID-19 pandemic, values-based messaging for business/economic-minded individuals and opportunities for adaptation and action. The techniques demonstrated throughout this brief can be utilized by the intended audience to further their own advocacy work and communicate effectively.
Works Cited
Chang, A. (2021, September 20). Anti-vaccine protesters fueled by existential anxiety, psychologist says. CBC News. Retrieved October 1, 2021, from https://www.cbc. ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-psychologist-anti-vaxxers-covid-19-1.6182396
Dupar, M., with McNamara, L. and Pacha, M. (2019). Communicating climate change: A practitioner’s guide. Cape Town: Climate and Development Knowledge Network.
Geiger, N., Gore, A., Squire, C. V., & Attari, S. Z. (2021). Investigating similarities and differences in individual reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate crisis. Climatic Change, 167(1-2), 1-1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03143-8
Harper, M. J. (2020, June 19). Can we achieve climate action and reconciliation in a post Covid World? Yellowhead Institute. Retrieved October 2, 2021, from https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2020/06/19/can-we-achieve-climate-action-and-reconciliation-in-a-post-covid-world/#1591126419293-029f948f-2dfb.
Hodson, J. (2019). An ecological model of climate marketing: A conceptual framework for understanding climate science related attitude and behavior change. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1), 1625101. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1625101
Maibach E, Nisbet M, & Weathers M. (2011) Conveying the Human Implications of Climate Change: A Climate Change Communication Primer for Public Health Professionals. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.
Moser, S. C. (2016). Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: What more is there to say? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Climate Change, 7(3), 345-369. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.403
O’Sullivan , F. (2019, November 11). To Survive Climate Change, We’ll Need a Better Story. Bloomberg.com. Retrieved October 3, 2021, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-11/meet-sweden-s-chief-storyteller-for-climate-change.