Framing and language for effective climate conversations
This guide offers expert insights and practical techniques towards framing and language for effective climate conversations. The guide focusses on engaging those ‘cautious’ and ‘concerned’ about the climate, i.e., “middle ground people”, as they make up a large percentage of the population.
AUTHORS

Introduction
This guide focusses on ways to engage ‘middle ground people’ in climate conversations. Middle ground people can be defined as individuals who are either ‘concerned’ or ‘cautious’ about climate change. These segments generally hold moderate views, which means they have a relatively high openness to consider both sides of an issue, if presented in the right way. These individuals are imperative in climate conversations as they typically make up a large percentage of a population and can facilitate real change. This guide demonstrates the cruciality of avoiding climate culture wars, which is achieved firstly through understanding common group values.
If we don’t carefully consider the application of our language and framing, we may push people away from the conversation altogether. Equally as importantly, we need to understand the diverse perspectives surrounding climate change so we can tailor our messaging to resonate with more people.*
Source: Australian segments from the 2022 Australian Climate Compass – Sunrise Project.
* This guide is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional, financial, or investment advice.
Guide launch & webinar recording
Hear from Les White, Dr. Juliette Tobias-Webb and Phil Vernon on framing and language for effective climate conversations.
Key insights
- There is an urgency in changing communication approaches: In order to reduce emissions quickly, we must rely on public support for emissions-reduction plans. Convincing apprehensive audiences (who make up large percentages of populations) is crucial for achieving emissions reduction targets.
- Diffuse the tribal conflict: Advocates for climate action often use language which makes certain groups uncomfortable, which activates tribal rivalries. To achieve emissions reduction, advocates need to de-escalate tribal conflict by demonstrating shared values and respect. Narrowing identities creates focus on differences and therefore more conflict; broadening identities can help diffuse conflict and remind of commonalities.
- What convinces one will put others off: People respond differently to climate messages. For example, moral appeals and environmentalism generally send middle ground groups backwards on climate issues. In message testing completed in 2023, a focus on values such as continuity, family and tradition was shown to be very effective.
- Use frames and speak to values which people can agree on: Framing is the lens you invite the audience to view your issue through, while language refers to the words you use to do that. Framing is the perspective around the picture, which affects the perception of the picture. Speaking in frames, or about values, which middle ground people hold, allows the speaker to connect with more people.
- Careful use of language: Use words that connect with your audience’s values. Moral obligation and disaster framing has been shown to actively put middle ground people off pollution reduction, but framing in values they hold, such as continuing to produce energy in their region, has been shown to work.
- Eliminate contempt from language: Language which reveals contempt for other points of view or fails to recognise and respect cultural differences such as those between country and city, sends people away from your cause and leads to tribal rivalries.
- Middle ground people value opportunity, tradition, family, job, and continuity: Presenting a project or climate action campaign through one of these lenses will increase the probability of engagement from middle ground people. Use commonly shared values to shape your message, i.e., a renewable project equals job creation not a solution to global warming.
- Use visual language: People connect with language they can picture. Talk about pollution or polluters, which people can visualise, rather than “emissions”. Use simple, everyday language and avoid all climate jargon. Words and terms such as Paris/Paris agreement, 1.5/2 degrees, net zero, anthropogenic and so on alienate everyday people.
- Make it sound possible by illustrating “small bites”: Rather than saying “We want to reduce pollution to net zero by 2040, one might say “We want to reduce pollution by 6% per year until 2040.”
- Remember many country people distrust governments and companies: Country people supply cities with water, food, electricity and more, but have had too many promises broken by governments and companies (e.g., regarding healthcare, internet, phone coverage and roads). Do not exaggerate, because messages around renewable energy and what it will deliver the regions are already met with scepticism.
What is worldview, framing and language
Research indicates that poorly framed communication pushes people further away from climate action and initiatives. Poorly framed communication is when the framing and language used to engage a target audience does not align with the values of that target audience.
Worldview
A person’s worldview is an intricate framework within which they perceive and interpret information, events, people, and situations. It functions as a mental lens, moulding their perception of the world and directing their reactions to stimuli around them. Each person has their own worldview, which is often shaped by their upbringing, culture, experiences, and beliefs. Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development supports this, claiming that during the concrete operational stage, which normally occurs between the ages of seven and 12, children begin to reason logically about concrete objects and experiences, building the foundation of their worldview.
Psychological research further illustrates that people tend to spend their lives trying to confirm their worldview. This phenomenon is known as ‘confirmation bias’, which is supported by research such as Kahan and colleagues (2017) and Pennycook and colleagues (2018), which show that individuals selectively interpret and recall information in ways that reinforce their preexisting beliefs.
Reality is inherently subjective. Consider two people encountering a snake in a field. While both individuals are exposed to the same stimuli, their worldviews diverge, resulting in drastically different reactions. Person one, who fears snakes, interprets the creature as a threat. Person two, who views snakes as intriguing, sees the experience as an opportunity to observe. This example shows how a person’s worldview can alter their perceptions, emotions, attitudes, and behaviours. Understanding worldview is essential, particularly in complex discussions like sustainable finance and climate change.
Framing
This is the process of presenting arguments or information within a particular perspective, which plays a pivotal role in shaping perceptions and influencing audience responses. Effective framing invites the audience to view the issue through a specific lens, guiding their interpretation and decision-making. Speaking in frames which middle ground people already think in and are comfortable with allows the speaker to access and connect with majority of the population rather than the like-minded few. By incorporating underlying beliefs or principles in your messaging that resonate with the audience’s worldview, framers can enhance the persuasiveness and acceptance of their messages.
Language
Language is an essential instrument for framing discussions and for influencing how information is presented and received. The use of approachable language ensures accessibility, and fosters engagement among varied audiences which may not share your worldview. It is critical to communicate in a way that engages on a human level while avoiding jargon, exaggeration, or partisanship. Some even aim to avoid the use of adjectives because adjectives are so subjective. Moreover, focusing on facts and personal relevance to the audience you’re communicating with cultivates understanding and facilitates constructive conversation.
In navigating conversations about sustainable finance and climate change, recognising the power of worldview, framing, and language is imperative. By tailoring messaging to align with diverse worldviews, framing arguments effectively, and communicating in accessible language, individuals can bridge divides, inspire collective action, and drive positive change. Ultimately, understanding these notions enables us to navigate complex issues and foster meaningful dialogue towards a more sustainable future.
Why framing and language matter now, more than ever
Pollution reduction is required now
Scientific consensus overwhelmingly confirms rising global temperatures, leading to increasingly frequent and intense extreme weather events, including heatwaves, droughts, floods, and storms. These events have devastating consequences for humans, ecosystems, societies and economies.
The IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report emphasises that the magnitude and rate of climate change depends heavily on actions taken within this decade, making the immediate implementation of both mitigation and adaptation strategies essential. Without immediate and accelerated action, the world risks exceeding critical warming thresholds of 1.5°C and 2°C, which would severely compromise climate-resilient development and result in dire consequences for future generations. Raising awareness and fostering understanding is therefore critical, which highlights the importance of effective framing and language to create compelling messages that drive urgent climate action.
A poll from Blueprint Institute sheds light on the sentiments of citizens in various regional areas of Australia regarding environmental policies. Directly contradicting media narratives, a majority express support for imposing levies on heavy carbon polluters, with the funds distributed among Australians annually. This indicates a growing optimism among regional Australians about embracing renewable opportunities for their communities. These findings suggest that many in regional areas are open to structural changes, provided they align with their long-term interests. Rather than seeking short-term income boosts, middle ground Australians prefer government initiatives aimed at driving sustainable, gainful employment opportunities. Moreover, the data reveals a willingness among these communities to prioritise renewable investments over fossil fuel subsidies. Contrary to stereotypes, most residents are not wedded to coal as the sole economic driver. They envision a promising future for their communities with diverse industries beyond fossil fuels.
Tailoring messages for different audiences
The previous section of this guide explored ‘worldview’ which shapes individual’s political affiliations, which typically fuel individuals’ beliefs and perspectives about climate change. In fact, one of the strongest predictors of belief in climate change is whether people identify with a political party that accepts versus denies climate change. This is why it is important to differentiate framing and language for different social groups, not just use a ‘one size fits all’ approach.
Tailoring climate action messages that resonate with different values, such as political perspectives, allows the ‘speaker’ or advocate to reach a broader audience and increase engagement. Framing the conversation around commonly shared values, such as economic security, clean air, or national security, can bridge the political divide and encourage individuals who may not initially identify with the climate change movement to consider the issue. By using language that emphasises shared values and identifies areas of common ground, we can create a more productive dialogue.
Research also shows that, that despite political divisions, open and respectful dialogue can foster convergence of views. This means that even individuals with initially opposing opinions can find common ground when given the opportunity to share their perspectives in a group setting, and more easily find solutions that benefit both sides.
It is important to engage a broad range of audiences in climate conversations, as climate change is impacting everyone. Though it is arguably a priority to engage middle ground people due to the percentage they make in relation to the broader population and their enormous electoral influence. In 2022, more than 40% of Australian voters identified as ‘Concerned’ or ‘Cautious’ about the climate according to the Australian Climate Compass (figure 1), which represent the Australian middle ground. Similarly, in 2023, 44% of American voters identified as ‘Concerned’ or ‘Cautious’.
As a note, the two segments both want their government to act on climate, but the key difference is that the cautious are extremely price sensitive and don’t want to pay for it out of their own pockets.
Source: Australian Climate Compass 2022.
Moving beyond climate culture wars
It has become glaringly apparent that the traditional battlefield approach to climate change debate has proven ineffective. The discourse surrounding emissions reduction has often been ensnared in a divisive and simplistic narrative, pitting the environment against economic prosperity, and framing the issue as a matter of jobs versus morality. This dichotomy deepens societal divides and hinders constructive dialogue and positive progress. Australia, for example, demonstrates the pitfalls of this approach. The climate conversation has become extremely polarised, with those opposing climate action arguing against the benefits and some even spreading misinformation.
The benefits of effective framing and language
Across the world, countries have been able to navigate climate action debates without creating toxic tribal rivalry. For example, in the UK, the Tories have won multiple elections with strong climate policies and former PM Boris Johnson was a noted supporter of emissions reduction. This shows that framing and language plays an integral role in garnering support for climate initiatives, which is essential for the longevity of this planet and economic stability.
The progress for climate action, particularly in Europe, indicates the positive benefits associated with effective framing and language. Therefore, we know that it can be achieved, if done so thoughtfully.
The list of benefits from effective framing and language around climate is too long to ignore. The benefits run through the environmental, social, and economic spheres.
From the economic perspective, a 2022 McKinsey & Company report estimates that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 could generate up to US$9.2 trillion in new market opportunities and create millions of new jobs globally. Effective communication can foster such opportunities by garnering public and private sector buy-in for sustainable investments. Financial professionals can leverage these opportunities by investing in green technologies, sustainable infrastructure, and other initiatives that drive economic growth while addressing climate change.
From the social perspective, the World Bank estimates that climate change could push over 100 million people into poverty by 2030. By framing climate action as an investment in a healthier, more prosperous future, we can move beyond fear-based messaging and foster a sense of collective responsibility. This approach not only highlights the financial viability of sustainable projects but also emphasises their positive social impact, encouraging investors, and others to support investments, projects and policies that mitigate climate risks and enhance social resilience. In the case of investors, this dual focus can attract more capital to sustainable projects, driving both economic growth and social progress.
Effective language empowers individuals to become active participants in the solution, ultimately leading to a more resilient and sustainable future.
Challenges to work through
Measuring communication strategies
One significant obstacle is the lack of measurement regarding the impact of switching framing and language in communication strategies. Evidence-based practices and research findings can help lead effective communication by determining which practices should be implemented based on efficacy studies. However, even within small geographic locations, language nuances can differ substantially, resulting in misunderstandings and misinterpretations. For example, in Australia, in regions like the Latrobe Valley and the Hunter Valley, where coal mining is prevalent, but the industries and attitudes differ, effective communication requires tailored approaches. The same language can carry different meanings and connotations, complicating efforts to convey messages universally. Moreover, regional differences in attitudes and priorities add another layer of complexity.
Polling methods, which are widely used to gauge public opinion and drive communication initiatives as an effective measurement, provide their own set of issues. Sampling errors, response biases, and question biases can skew results, leading to misleading interpretations. Additionally, changing views and lack of context further complicate the accuracy of polling data. In the past year, more research on language has been done in Australia. Unpublished message testing by Beyond Zero Emissions focussed on energy shift regions, and focus group work on the attitudes of middle ground people in energy shift regions by RE-alliance has also delivered more data to our understanding of language and issues nuances in Australia.
Linguistic and ideological barriers
Social groups are inevitable. They are shaped by shared culture, life experiences, family ties and community values and therefore influence worldview and subsequently political and religious leanings. To this end, social groups often develop unique language and communication styles that strengthen their sense of belonging, meaning that language outside of their social group is treated unfamiliar, uncomfortable, or difficult to understand.
Some neuroscientific research suggests that social divides, for example political leanings, may have a neurological basis. Studies by Oxford University and New York University show conservatives tend to be more risk-averse, while progressives may be more open to new experiences. Jonathan Haidt’s moral matrix theory builds on this, highlighting how different moral foundations (sanctity, loyalty, authority vs. caring, fairness) shape political ideologies and communication styles. This means that social divides are not only socially constructed, but possibly biologically formed.
When social and political groups are further divided by language, effective communication is difficult to achieve. For example, while some people may take pride in knowing progressive lingo, research shows that the use of lingo can be a linguistic barrier and diminish the effectiveness of messages. Message testing, both locally and internationally highlights the harmful impact of poorly phrased communication. It’s not just a squandered opportunity; it’s actually destructive, alienating prospective supporters.
Need for education
Effective communication tactics should include extensive research to better grasp geographical variances and language nuances. Advocates of climate discussions need to consider a variety of communication routes and message testing approaches to ensure that communication is relevant in evolving social landscapes. Overall, successfully navigating the complexity of effective communication necessitates a thorough awareness of context, language, and audience dynamics.
Talking about climate can trigger anxiety and stress
How to use effective framing and language: Dos and Don’ts
This section provides useful framing and language to engage middle ground people, i.e., the ‘Concerned’ and ‘Cautious’. Some of the suggestions below also apply to more conservative thinkers, but you’ll do well to research effective framing and language for the specific audience(s) you are wanting to engage.
If you want to reach multiple audiences, you’ll need to tailor your messages to each. Consider:
- Their values: What matters most to them? e.g., feelings of identity and belonging, personal security, financial security, community, legacy, tradition, social wellbeing, biodiversity.
- Climate awareness: Are they familiar with the science and associated jargon?
- Information sources: Where do they get their news? This will help you understand the language they resonate with most.
Focus on shared values
- Highlight opportunities: Use language like opportunity, jobs, industry, family, community and tradition. Discuss strengthened regional communities continuing family and local traditions in energy, regional investments, and a stable future. For example, “Strong climate policy brings investment in regional industries, enhances security, and creates jobs.”
- Highlight economic development: Frame emissions reduction investments as an opportunity for economic development, not through environmental or moral contexts.
- Emphasise security and safety: Present climate solutions as proactive measures to safeguard families, communities, and critical resources.
- Appeal to tradition and continuity: Connect climate action with continuing a legacy or tradition, e.g., emphasise to investors that they can continue their legacy while making a positive social or environmental impact.
- Use concrete examples: People connect better to personal stories and specifics. Highlight projects and initiatives that create jobs and economic growth. Use organisation case studies that are successfully driving change in sustainability and maintaining a high level of financial success.
- Showcase ‘building existing strengths’: Present clean and renewable investments and as extensions of an area’s (or organisation’s) traditional strengths rather than new changes. Continuity over change.
- Emphasise individual freedom: Individuals who are more conservative oppose involuntary collectivism but approve of voluntary community actions. For instance, “Farmers should be free to sell carbon crop credits if they choose; the government shouldn’t dictate what farmers grow.”
- Incorporate facts non-judgmentally: For example, 40,000 of Australia’s 50,000 coal jobs are in export and not affected by Australia’s emissions reduction targets, though they are influenced by the targets in importing countries.
Be aware of framing and language to avoid
- Focus on “Can” not “Should”: Present climate action as a choice, not a moral obligation. Many believe their duty is to present needs, not future ones. Instead of “We should reduce emissions,” or “This region should transition” say “We can create jobs for our children by investing in renewables.” Barnaby Joyce, Deputy Prime Minister, touches on this in his speech at the National Press Club, on the week of the 2022 election.
People get really worried when you say the word “transition” because for “transition” they translate it to what it means for them. “Transition” translates to “unemployment” because there is no actual job. Once they leave there with their $100,000 a year, there’s nowhere to go and there’s no one to pay for their house and pay for their car and pay for the kids at school. So, when they hear “transition”, they translate that to “unemployment”.
- Use “Shift” or “Investment” in your framing: Instead of “transition” or “cost,” which may imply job or financial For example, “Invest in clean energy production for this region”.
- Don’t over-emphasise environmental protection: Most people don’t prioritise the environment or animals as key values. Environmental framing speaks to about 15% of Australians, not the middle ground. It also triggers the “environment versus jobs” mindset, where jobs usually win. The belief that saving the environment costs jobs is outdated but prevalent. Avoid discussing ‘green’ technologies; “clean” is a better word which implies dirtier alternatives are just that.
- Avoid disaster/threat framing: People don’t respond well to threats and may interpret “If you don’t act on climate, bad things will happen” as a direct threat. They don’t like to believe they’re under threat and may dismiss it as dramatic since no single disaster is entirely attributable to climate change. (See Don’t even think about it: Why our brains are wired to ignore climate change by George Marshall.)
- Avoid jargon: Terms like ‘net-zero,’ ‘Kyoto protocol,’ ‘COP,’ and ‘Paris Agreement’ might confuse or disengage your audience. Use clear and concise language. Instead of 1.5 degrees/2 degrees, say “pollution has created a blanket around the earth”.
Language:
To convey climate damage to the middle ground, speak about human impacts and losing things humans have achieved or built (businesses or jobs). For example, you could highlight how hard families had worked to pay off their business before it was taken by a bushfire.
Frames:
Be curious: partial agreement and “how” questions
Agreeing with part of the opposing viewpoint can show openness to different perspectives. Manuel J. Smith, author of “When I Say No, I Feel Guilty,” suggests partial agreement reduces conflict. For example, saying, “Yeah, I worry about wind farms killing eagles too,” shows moderation and common ground, avoiding extreme stances.
Chris Voss, in “Never Split the Difference,” notes that questions starting with “Why?” sound accusatory, while “How?” questions seem curious. Using questions to lead someone to realise their view’s implausibility is more effective than telling them directly. Use “how” questions to achieve this. For example, “You say we could build nuclear reactors and also that local communities won’t accept offshore wind farms. How would local communities accept nuclear reactors, particularly in coal regions which are typically home to many tectonic fault lines?”
Pivot back to your key messages/frame
- Acknowledge the question asked.
- Immediately shift the focus to your desire talking point (your frame).
- Connect the two points to create a sense of flow in the conversation.
- Question: “What about the job losses in the coal industry?”
- Pivot: “I’m concerned about energy workers too. That’s why I think it’s so important to create clean energy jobs now in regional areas. Offshore wind projects need thousands of workers off the coast of Gippsland, and this can create so many jobs for energy workers as energy companies close their coal-fired power stations.”
Addressing specific concerns
- Shrinking coal power jobs: Acknowledge the reality but pivot to the opportunities in clean energy production.
- Costs of transition: Reframe the question by highlighting the long-term benefits like cheaper energy and new opportunities for regional areas, or domestic economic growth.
Effective communication techniques
- Ask gentle questions: “Who’s going to benefit?” fosters engagement rather than putting someone on the defensive.
- Fact-based approach: Use specific examples, statistics, or company actions to support your points. (e.g., investments by major polluters in renewables).
- Focus on “How” and “What” questions: “How will you do that?” and “What are the benefits?” encourage discussion and avoid a confrontational tone.
- Know your limits: If unsure about a topic, gently redirect the conversation or suggest finding more information together.
Don’t state, demonstrate
People resist when they feel pushed to adopt a conclusion. They hold strongly to conclusions they arrive at themselves. Demonstrate your point with stories containing facts and stats instead of stating the conclusion you want. Present objective information and let the person form their own conclusion.
Carrot, not stick
Informing middle-ground people about climate inaction often backfires, as they perceive it as a threat and adopt a more comfortable frame, like “It’s not that bad.” To elicit a positive response, focus on the benefits of sustainable finance investments (for example), such as creating jobs through renewable projects in regional areas and building out those economies.
Don’t think of an elephant
As George Lakoff argues in his classic text on framing “Don’t think of an elephant”, mentioning a topic brings it to mind and pulls focus to it. So do not begin by saying “We disagree on x but” as this guarantees the person will think about x and also frames you as a person they are in conflict with – the other tribe. Keep the focus on your message. You can also do this by pivoting.
Case Studies
An example of effective use of framing and language
In an Australian political context, the most effective communicator on climate has been Barnaby Joyce. In his National Press Club appearance as Deputy Prime Minister immediately prior to the 2022 election, he demonstrated a nuanced understanding of key themes like opportunity, nationalism, and loss aversion.
He drags people into a loss aversion frame, one of the most powerful frames, because loss is subjectively experienced as more devastating than the equivalent gain is gratifying. He speaks of job losses, the loss of affordable food (“$100 roasts”) and invokes classic favourite frames such as family and tradition of burning coal.
At 44:20, Joyce started his answer by bringing up nationalism “let’s just have a look our nation is an honourable nation. Why? Because we make agreements, and we stick to them we’ve honoured every agreement… but what our nation does what’s so good about us this is why we’re so diligent is we make promises and keep to them we’re doing that”. He leverages nationalism and local parochialism to bolster support for his stance.
During his address, Joyce adeptly navigates the language divide surrounding climate discourse, acknowledging the divergence in interpretation between urban and regional communities. At 45:25, Joyce spoke candidly about the language divide and the use of the word “transition”, a favoured word of everyday Australians. Joyce said: “In regional areas, ‘transition’ is read as ‘unemployment’. Transitioning to unemployment.” revealing its resonance with urban audiences as a pathway to progress but its connotation of unemployment in regional areas.
He had stated similar just weeks earlier in the mining-heavy central Queensland city of Gladstone, stating he would not use the word “transition” because it “equals unemployment”.
Joyce’s communication strategy reflects a nuanced understanding of the socio-cultural landscape of Australia, leveraging frames and language that align with the values and priorities of everyday Australians. His emphasis on opportunity, nationalism, and loss aversion cultivates a narrative that transcends partisan divides, garnering support for his vision of climate policy rooted in regional prosperity and national pride.
An example of positive framing and language
This campaign Trump Voters: “It’s OK to change your mind. We did” by Republican Voters Against Trump illustrates the capacity to call people to you (and your argument) without insulting their prior choices. This campaign demonstrates positive framing, rather than negative framing – harnessing stories from former trump voters, who became disappointed with his actions and fallacies – to deter current trump voters away from him, and towards their own party.
Conclusion
To change the communication approach with middle ground people on climate issues, it is critical to examine the power of framing and language. We may cross tribal divides and encourage productive conversation by presenting the message and messenger in accessible ways that appeal to a variety of opinions. Understanding the values and concerns of various communities, especially in regional locations, is critical for effectively interacting with varied audiences. Rather than using divisive language or moral superiority, expressing environmental issues in terms of practical effects on jobs, families, and traditions can help to achieve consensus. We can overcome tribal divisions and work together to find answers for a sustainable future by using a more inclusive communication strategy.
Learn more about framing and language
Talk like a human guide by Potential Energy
This guide helps readers better communicate climate change issues. It discusses the importance of using language people understand and discourages the use of jargon and technical terms. Instead, the guide suggests clear and concise language that connect with people on an emotional level.
Just get on with it: A communications guide for effectively talking about climate change and economics by Climate Council
This guide is designed to provide practical advice about how to effectively talk about climate change during a global pandemic and recession.
Guide for policy makers by Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub
This is a literature review of best practice communication of climate science and impacts for policy makers.
Message strategies for global warming’s six Americas
Global climate change is viewed from a variety of perspectives by Americans, with some dismissing the danger, some entirely unaware of its significance, and still others highly concerned and motivated to take action. Understanding the sources of these diverse perspectives is key to effective audience engagement: Messages that ignore the cultural and political underpinnings of people’s views on climate change are less likely to succeed.
A controversial play – and what it taught me about the psychology of climate by David Finnegan (TED Talk)
Related Research
Climate change 2023 synthesis report
References
ABARES (2020) Climate change impacts and adaptation on Australian farms Retrieved 12 April 2024.
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Ben Raue (2022) The declining major party vote Retrieved 11 April 2024.
Beyond Zero Emissions Unpublished research Retrieved 11 April 2024.
Brittany Bloodhart, Janet K. Swim and Elaine Dicicco (2019). “Be worried, be VERY worried:” Preferences for and impacts of negative emotional climate change communication Retrieved 5 April 2024.
Blueprint Institute (2021) Blueprint Institute poll: Voices from the regions Retrieved 15 March 2024.
Bureau of Meteorology (2022) State of the Climate 2022 Retrieved 12 April 2024.
Chris Voss (2016) Never split the difference: Negotiating as if your life depended on it Retrieved 5 June 2024.
CSIRO (2024) CSIRO survey reveals Australians’ attitudes toward the renewable energy transition Retrieved 12 April 2024.
CSIRO (2020) The challenge at the end of Australia’s mighty Murray-Darling system Retrieved 12 April 2024.
CSIRO (2021) New research links Australia’s forest fires to climate change Retrieved 12 April 2024.
Dan M. Kahan, Ellen Peters, Erica Dawson and Paul Slovic. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government Retrieved 21 August 2024.
Earth.org (2024) Framing a crisis: The evolution of climate communication and storytelling Retrieved 12 April 2024.
Erica Etelson (2019) Beyond Contempt: How Liberals can communicate across the great divide Retrieved 10 March 2024.
George Lakoff (2004) Don’t think of an elephant Retrieved 10 March 2024.
George Marshall (2024) Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change Retrieved 10 March 2024.
Gordon Pennycook, Adam Bear, Evan Collins and David Gertler Rand (2019). The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings Retrieved 21 August 2024.
IPCC (2023) Climate change synthesis report Retrieved 05 April 2024. Altiorem: https://altiorem.org/research/climate-change-2023-synthesis-report/
Jean Piaget (1976) Piaget’s Theory Retrieved 05 April 2024.
John T. Jost & David M. Amodia (2011) Amodio Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence Retrieved 10 March 2024
Kate Votaw Majority Influence- Conforming To The Group Retrieved 05 April 2024.
Labor Powering Australia Retrieved 10 March 2024.
Manuel J. Smith, Ph.D. (1985) When I say no, I feel guilty Retrieved 18 February 2024.
Matthew D. Luttig (2023) The Closed Partisan Mind: A New Psychology of American Polarization Retrieved 17 March 2024.
Matthew Goldberg, Abel Gustafson, Sander van der Linden, Seth Rosenthal and Anthony Leiserowitz (2022) Communicating the scientific consensus on climate change: Diverse audiences and effects over time Retrieved 1 June 2024.
Matthew J. Hornsey, Emily A. Harris, Paul G. Bain and Kelly S. Fielding (2024) Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change Retrieved 18 March 2024.
McKinsey & Company (2022) The net-zero transition: What it would cost, what it could bring Retrieved 10 March 2024.
Michele Ferguson and Peta Ashworth (2021) Message framing, environmental behaviour and support for carbon capture and storage in Australia Reviewed April 15 2024.
Pedersen et al. (2018) Conservatism and the neural circuitry of threat: economic conservatism predicts greater amygdala–BNST connectivity during periods of threat vs safety Retrieved 18 June 2024.
Rachel Macreadie (2011) Public opinion polls Retrieved 11 April 2024.
Robert B. Cialdini (1984) Influence: Science and Practice Retrieved 6 March 2024.
The Guardian (2024) Reckless or reasonable? Factchecking the claims of anti-renewable activists Retrieved 5 March 2024.
The Nationals Protecting Our Environment Retrieved 09/04/2024
The Sunrise Project (2022) The Climate Compass Segmentation Retrieved 11 March 2024.
Verlan Lewis & Hyram Lewis (2022) The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America Retrieved 10 April 2024.
Zachary Elwood (2024) Defusing American Anger: A depolarisation book Retrieved 12 April 2024.