How to Communicate Climate Change

After all the hype surrounding the Copenhagen climate convention and John Key's last-minute attendance, little has happened to affect the public or show any definite signs of change. So what then was the point of this meeting and what has it achieved? The convention resulted in the Copenhagen Accord (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf).

Fifty-five countries, making up 80% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, have pledged goals for their efforts in the matter.
The Accord outlines goals as part of the aim to stabilise greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere - a seemingly worthwhile cause given this has been identified as one of the obvious outcomes of pollution and causes for Climate Change. But is this cause for celebration?

Maybe not, as the Accord is not a legally binding document - rather it is "politically-binding". The strength, or weakness, of this term was summed up by noted PR practitioner, blogger and climate change expert, Kevin Grandia: "With all the long hours I've been putting into to covering these climate talks, I'm sure my wife is wishing our marriage was a politically binding agreement, as opposed to a legal one". Nevertheless some world leaders are speaking out in support of the Accord. On February 1, 2010, the NZ Minister of Climate Change Nick Smith called the Accord a "constructive step forward" which closely echoed a similarly supportive statement from Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street.

So it seems for the moment that Copenhagen stands only as a symbol of a political agreement with little influence or action to motivate those that really matter - the mass of world public opinion. What then can PR do to communicate more clearly the reasons for understanding or supporting the convention?

This is difficult because Climate Change is inextricably based on scientific reasoning and like all good science there are reports on both sides of the debate. This debate hasn't been helped by a recent article suggesting that ExxonMobil has been funding anti-climate change think-tanks - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10624726. In addition the public has also been scared by the prospect raised by critics, of the cost to consumers if governments enact climate change legisation such as the NZ Government's Emission Trading Scheme (ETS).

No wonder climate change remains controversial and the general doubt or disinterest will remain as long as there is a plethora of divided opinion. This is where the UN, in conjunction with world governments and the private sector, needs to take a much more definitive and concerted role in consistently communicating the positive effects of tackling climate change in ways that do not confuse or shock the public, but rather inform and encourage. PR plays a vital role in issuing the call to action on a global, national, regional and individual level.

It will not be science alone that will convince the public to support the Accord and initiatives such as the ETS - it is the job of professional communicators to inspire change through making scientific data more accessible and showing how many companies and people are already making practical changes, from using sustainable energy such as biofuels, to recyclable packaging, to public transport.

PR practitioners need not to convince their audience just of the strength of the Accord or even the validity of climate change; rather they only need to communicate the desire for change through real examples.

Crisis Communications

Gone are the days when companies could respond to a crisis situation in time for television or newspaper deadlines. The rise of social media has seen several new channels added to stakeholder communications and they have already been tested by major NZ companies this year. One example is Vector’s response to customer’s affected by Transpower’s system fault which led to a blackout in much of Auckland. Vector’s website received thousands of hits in the first few hours of the outage, proving the popularity of online channels for fast information. But the event that stands out as 2010’s first catastrophic crisis, and most media-covered response, is without a doubt Telecom’s XT network crash which left thousands unable to use their mobile phones, even to call emergency services. Issues like these call for fast and effective communication to respond to the questions and demands of customers, shareholders, journalists and bloggers.

Given the speed of the internet in broadcasting news, and the immediate spread of this news across social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, companies need to communicate instantaneously across several mediums. Traditional channels are still vital to provide further information but it is online media that is key for breaking news. While it is important for companies to communicate using TV and radio it is equally as important to “tweet” the information for the online audience, post online real-time updates on the corporate website and speak to online fan and consumer groups. This platform has increased the pressure and demand for a quick company response but is also incredibly valuable for agency or in-house practitioners dealing with a crisis. The capabilities of Twitter were displayed in Telecom’s use of the channel throughout its XT crisis, responding immediately to the initial crash as well as posting updates and apologies from the CEO. Online media allow organisations to target specific audiences and broadcasts facts during the time when rumours are only starting to emerge – dealing with the original crisis immediately as opposed to its amplified version on the six o’clock news.

The ability of the online audience to gain huge amounts of information at the click of a button means companies need to supply insightful information instead of a statement which skilfully avoids the facts using colourful jargon. Organisations are no longer able to use a “one size fits all” crisis management strategy, instead responding with a unique approach to each issue. Considering all this, practitioners need to be able to offer insight into the customer’s field as well as an understanding of both traditional and new media to respond effectively in crisis. The way a company responds to a crisis either credits or further damages its reputation – the loss of which could cost more than any compensation payout.