Fixing Climate Communications

What the evidence shows

This perspective piece argues that health professionals, who already occupy a position of public trust and communicate complex statistics regularly, have both the tools and the responsibility to communicate climate change health impacts more effectively. Ellen Peters and Renee Salas observe that roughly a third of Americans are functionally innumerate: raw statistics frequently fail to land as intended, regardless of how alarming the underlying data may be.

Drawing on behavioural science evidence about how people process numerical information, the authors propose four principles for translating climate health statistics into messages that genuinely inform and motivate: providing meaningful context (especially through comparison and local data); reducing cognitive burden (by doing the math for the audience and using consistent frames); adding human stories (to make abstract risks personally relevant, paired with statistical likelihood); and furnishing feasible solutions (because perceived efficacy is a prerequisite for action, and hopelessness shuts it down).

The piece is structured around the finding that 37% of heat-related deaths during warm months are attributable to human-induced climate change,  demonstrating step by step how each principle transforms a static statistic into a message that is comprehensible, emotionally resonant, and actionable.

Key Findings

• Direct beats indirect, 2:1. Messages about the direct impact of climate change beat “side-door” messages (economic growth, jobs, innovation) by 2:1, per the landing page.

• Three “front door” messages work best in all six countries: Love (extreme weather already harming people and places we care about), Health (oil and gas chemicals are everywhere, unnatural and unhealthy), Money (the financial cost of climate change falls unfairly on us). A fourth story, Power (unlimited energy frees people from limited choice, supply and high prices), is the “cure” story.

• “Pollution” framing raises perceived solvability. Returning to the root cause in plain language makes climate change feel 10–20% more solvable (newsletter).

• People favor building clean. By more than 2 to 1, respondents say “all or mostly clean” is a better way to meet growing energy demand than “all or mostly fossil.”

Standout data points

• 2:1: direct-impact messages vs. side-door messages.

• 10–20%: increase in how solvable climate change feels when framed as pollution.

• Up to −20%: drop in support when “ban” or “mandate” appears.

Examples of how Understories uses this research

• Accessibility Strong fit. Reward everyday language and avoid coded words (“crisis”, “green”) that shrink the audience, with the caveat that this is based on six Western samples.

• Clarity Penalize jargon the report flags as empty (“net zero”, “scope 3”, “energy transition”). Reward plain-language cause-and-effect (“pollution is overheating the planet”).

• Emotional resonance Reward messages tied to love, health or money in everyday life. Score lower when impact stays abstract, global or statistical.

• Hope Doom balance Supports pairing a consequence with a solvable cause (pollution) and an exciting cure. Does not say consequences should be softened. Check against hope/fear research already in the library.

• Autonomy The report’s own concerns (scolding “shoulds”, ban and mandate language) align with respecting people’s agency. Messages that inform and offer a path respect autonomy better than those that pressure. Optimizing wording for measured persuasion also deserves caution if it drifts into manipulation.

• Justice The “Money” story names unfair cost burdens, which fits a justice frame. But the sample covers six wealthy countries only, so findings should not be generalized to communities most affected by climate impacts.

— non-exhaustive.

Key quote

The report’s central diagnosis: “Climate change is not a narrow issue. But today’s narratives narrow the audience.”

© 2026 Potential Energy Coalition.

Library entry updated: 5 October 2026