the climate change curator’s playbook

A Field Guide to Mobilizing Climate action  

Throughout history, artists have helped investigate the critical issues of their time. As we struggle to maintain a sustainable relationship with our environment, their voices are more needed than ever to help us deepen our sense of responsibility for the planet.

How can we address climate change through art?

This field guide is for contemporary art curators hoping to impact environmental change. It draws on lessons learned from my curatorial practice over the last decade, and the latest research in climate change communication.

The Role of a Climate Change Curator

How might we connect invisible atmospheric changes to the felt experience of daily life? How can we help people not just intellectually understand, but viscerally feel these issues, in a way that inspires action?

Bill McKibben, Founder of 360.org, summarizes the problem like this:

“Though we know about it, we don’t know about it. It hasn’t registered in our gut; it isn’t part of our culture. Where are the books? The poems? The plays? The goddamn operas? We can register what is happening with satellites and scientific instruments, but can we register it in our imaginations, the most sensitive of all our devices?” — McKibben in What the Warming World Needs Now Is Art, Sweet Art

More than ever, we need artists, designers, scientists and researchers to help us experience these issues in new ways. In ways that can change our minds, and get us moving.

But to face this challenge, it is critical to understand the key success factors when curating environmental topics. We need to identify the problems that stand in our way, and maximize our impact at each stage of the curatorial process.

The Challenge of Climate Change Curation

Before we can mobilize people to act, we need to understand why people have been so reluctant to change. 

Why aren’t people taking action on climate change?

• The culprit is invisible. The main causes of climate change are carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. These ghostly molecules are colorless and odorless. People inherently have difficulty relating to things they can’t see, feel or touch. 

• The impact is too far in the future to grasp. Immediate concerns always trump distant ones. People are more worried about putting food on the table and fitting in with their social/cultural group than intangible events that might happen long after they’re gone.

• We lack concrete signals indicating we need to change. If we do a poor job at work, the consequences are tangible: we get fired. But if we continue our habitual actions that pump Co2 into the atmosphere, we often do not experience immediate, tangible repercussions. That makes it hard to accept that it’s really happening and causing problems. 

• Automatic defense mechanisms make it hard to process. Common emotional reactions to climate change include fear, numbness, defiance, guilt and anger. These are the same reactions to trauma, which can completely shut down our ability to deal with problems rationally. Accounting for these reactions is key to keeping people engaged in climate issues. 

• It can threaten our basic need to put food on the table. Millions of people rely on paychecks from fossil fuel companies, global transportation companies, big agriculture, fast fashion brands, and other climate change culprits. A coal miner who is concerned about the safety of his five kids and facing potential layoffs is in no position to ask his neighbors to stop buying coal and switch to solar. We can’t expect people to put their financial security at risk without meeting them on their own terms and starting from a place of empathy. 

• We get no gratification by taking action. If you do a great job at work, you may be recognized in front of your whole team. Positive reinforcement makes us feel good, motivating us to continue the behavior. But taking climate action does not provide any gratification. Separating recycling feels like a chore; It doesn’t provide a dopamine release and reinforce our biological feedback loop to do it again. 

• It can threaten our agency and freedom. Many people naturally don’t like being told what to do, without deciding on their own if it’s in their best interest. Anything that takes away options can feel like an affront to individual power of choice. We can’t expect this people to stop doing things they love — even if unsustainable — unless we frame problems and solutions in a way that’s empathetic to their worldview.

• Disbelief in human’s global influence. Many people believe that humans couldn’t have caused climate change. How could such a huge and age-old system be so affected by our species? Often this disbelief isn’t based in scientific logic, but in emotional, cultural, familial, or economic reasons. These need to be addressed with sensitivity and care.

• Lack of basic understanding of science. Sometimes it’s simply a lack of knowledge that gets in our way. Projects like Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth help address that problem. But research shows that it’s almost always other reasons that prevent people from taking action. We need to address those as well as the pure science.

how is current climate communication failing?

• Simply providing more information does not inspire action. This assumption has been studied widely. It’s known as the knowledge deficit model (Bak 2001; Sturgis and Allum 2004). Research shows that giving more information is not enough to mobilize people (Nisbet and Scheufele 2009). In fact, overloading people with data can actually come off as condescending if people feel like they’re being treated as irrational or ignorant. 

• Fear-mongering does not inspire action by itself. Studies show that audiences generally reject fear appeals as manipulative (Moser 2007c; O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole 2009). Conservative audiences have been particularly resistant to them when it comes to climate change (Jost et al. 2007). Images of overwhelming problems without effective solutions can trigger denial, numbness, and apathy. These reactions control the unpleasant experience of fear, but don’t inspire action to mitigate the actual threat (APA 2009; CRED 2009). 

• Framing the issue as a scientific problem doesn’t inspire action. Most people do not find the science of climate change inherently interesting. They may get lost in jargon and technical details, or feel exclusion during debates over minutiae beyond their grasp. Also, it’s typically a one-way communication when experts present the science. This doesn’t leave room for dialog, building a shared understanding of the problem, or collaborating on possible solutions. 

• Mass media is not the most effective way to inspire action. Climate campaigns often assume that mass communication is the most effective way to reach wide audiences. But a closer look is needed. Although it’s natural to want to reach large numbers through television, newspapers, and the internet, media channels are often consumed without great attention, quickly discarded or ignored. Adding to the problem, changes in the media landscape have affected the quality and diversity of news (Moser 2009b, 2010). So simply blasting messages out of a public megaphone misses the point of engaging people in a way that’s meaningful to them. 

• Information provided by untrusted sources does not inspire action. Climate change has mostly been communicated by experts or scientists voices in media reports (Nisbet 2009). But these are not the most trusted or most appropriate source with every audience or with any message (Cvetkovich and Löfstedt 2000). 

how can we pick the right medium for our message?

People relate to climate change very differently. So understanding how to tailor messages to each audience is critical.

For example:

• If climate change is framed as a moral issue, religious leaders may have greater persuasion (Wardekker et al. 2009).

• If taking action on climate change is seen as an economic issue, it may be most credibly conveyed by a business person who has done it (Arroyo and Preston 2007).

• If climate change is framed as a national security issue, experienced spokespeople such as former CIA director James Woolsey may serve as a more trusted messenger (Nisbet 2009).

• If climate change is framed as a social issue, community members taking action can be effective. For example, teenagers already active in the climate movement can be more effective messengers than hip celebrities (Isham and Waage 2007).

These brief examples highlight the importance of choosing the right medium to maximize impact.

A Checklist for Climate Change Curators

There is no silver bullet to fix climate change. However, the checklist below can help increase the likelihood that we genuinely changing behavior at scale.

Climate change curators should:

• Connect climate change to tangible, local issues that people care about. For example: their finances, their children, their health and safety, household energy use, cost savings, energy security, etc. Curators should consider works that connect to the direct experience of their audience’s everyday life. We need to make climate change a tangible, felt experience.

• Be empathetic to people’s reactions to disturbing information. People are more open to hearing information about risks if their worldview is affirmed beforehand. Understanding and acknowledging your audience’s perspective up front helps build a bridge so they can more readily accept difficult information that may follow (Kahan and Braman 2008). Take great care when writing curatorial statements and other materials. Make sure it reads in a way that builds trust and rapport with your audience. Run your wall text by several difference audiences to make sure it lands well, before going to print.

• Tailor your message to your specific audience. One size does not fit all. What issues and language resonate with different individuals and groups? What values do your audience share? What aspirations do they have – as parents, as professionals, etc? What have they already heard about climate change? What mental models or possible misconceptions might they have beforehand? Framing — through words, images, tone of voice, messengers, and other signals — provides essential context for people to make sense of an issue. We need to contextualize our work carefully, because framing can trigger a cascade of responses that can prime an audience for action – or not.

• Reach your audience on the channels they care about. Audiences differ by the information channels they use, and what messengers are credible to them. Without solid audience knowledge, outreach campaigns may not generate more than fleeting attention. Or they may fail to meet the information needs people have. This can create resistance to considering the information we’re trying to communicate (Dickinson 2009; Jost and Hunyady 2005). Also consider that some people learn better through reading, some through listening, some through watching video. Strive to show work across multiple mediums, to increase the likelihood that every viewer single will be engaged.

• Select messengers that will have the greatest impact. Messengers — those who convey a message — are a critical part of the framing. Our messenger should be consistent with the way the message is framed, or the importance and credibility of the message will be undermined (FrameWorks Institute 2002). Individuals not inclined or able to systematically process a large amount of (sometimes conflicting) complex or difficult to understand information will use  mental shortcuts  to make up their mind (Kahneman et al. 1982). For example, trust can be built more easily from a messenger belonging to one’s own social or cultural group (Cialdini 1993; Agyeman et al. 2007). Try to make sure you include a diverse variety of artists in your work, because viewers may feel more moved by certain groups than others.

• Inspire interaction and participation. Studies show that face-to-face communication is more persuasive than mass media communication (Lee et al. 2002). It is more personal. And nonverbal cues allow communicators to gauge how information is being received in real-time, and respond accordingly. Direct communication also allows for dialogue to emerge. Trust between individuals participating in a two-way exchange goes a long way toward engaging and convincing someone. Interactive communication, whether face to face or over the internet, improves health outcomes and behavior change (Abroms and Maibach 2008). Think about how you can make your exhibitions, events and materials interactive to maximize our impact. And consider supplementary programming like talks with Q&A, round tables, and socials. These can help drive deeper conversation on the topic.

• Leave people with a feeling of options and opportunities. Information about risk and fear-evoking images should be limited. They should always be paired them with specific, pragmatic solutions so people feel a sense of agency. Leaving someone afraid without a course of action is not effective. Leave them with simple, clear tips so they feel empowered and not hopeless.

• Leverage community to engage and support action on an ongoing basis. It’s important to establish a sense of collective response. This is especially true within social and cultural groups. The solutions we propose should be consistent with our audience’s personal aspirations, desired social identity, and cultural biases (CRED 2009; Segnit and Ereaut 2007). Many people may feel overwhelmed about and the deep and lasting societal changes required to address the problem. That’s why facilitated dialogue and structured deliberation of issues as they emerge is so crucial (Kahan and Braman 2006). Studies show that this improves interpersonal knowledge and trust of people with very different values, provides critical social support and affirmation, increases openness to risk information, and enables decision making – rather than obstructs it (Nagda 2006). Think about how you can extend the life of your project or exhibition. For example, can you turn it into an ongoing series of online workshops or conversations? Can your local library host a meetup on the topic?

• Tailor programming to attract the skill sets needed for climate change. We need the best and brightest minds in the world working on climate change. How do we get them all involved? Our programming should strive to inspire audiences with the skillsets we need to join the effort. For example:

  • An exhibition tailored to engineers and scientists could feature Dyson spheres, artificial photosynthesis, fusion power, and other beacons of transformational science, inspiring new minds to join us in ideating creative solutions.

  • An exhibition tailored to foodies could inspire cooks, farmers, chefs, bartenders, #foodporn instagram influencers to see new ways of eco-friendly cooking in a sustainable world.

  • An exhibition tailored to sustainable fashion could inspire the next generation of designers to think differently about how they source their materials and compensate their workers.

  By strategically identifying segments of people who will be critical to the success of the climate action movement, we can create experiences that inspire them to join the cause, and more fully tap the collective power of humankind.

  a sustainable future is ours to inspire

  The checklist above is by no means exhaustive. It is just a starting point. My hope is that it inspires the world’s climate change curators to take a more strategic approach to their efforts.

  The solutions we dream up will need to cross disciplines, span cultures, reach millions, and connect to our deeply personal experience of life. They will need to present difficult topics and move audiences from denial and fear into inspiration and action.

  As climate change curators, we are conduits that will inspire the future. We are privileged to channel our passion and skills into solving the world’s single biggest existential challenge. I can think of nothing more rewarding than committing to this mission together.

  So join me in mobilizing change. The next generation of solutions our species will dream up are ours to inspire. And to lead this charge may the greatest calling of our time.