Introduction

The guide focuses on engaging ‘middle ground’ individuals—those cautious or concerned about climate change—who represent a large, influential share of the population. It highlights the need to avoid polarisation by understanding shared values and tailoring communication to diverse perspectives to sustain engagement and enable behavioural change.

Key insights

Effective communication is critical to achieving emissions reduction, as public support is required for policy implementation. Language that triggers division or moral framing can alienate audiences, while framing aligned with values such as family, jobs, and continuity increases engagement. Evidence shows over 40% of Australians fall into ‘concerned’ or ‘cautious’ groups, underscoring their importance.

Message testing indicates that environmental or moral appeals can be counterproductive, whereas practical framing—such as job creation—improves receptiveness. Avoiding jargon and using visual, accessible language enhances understanding. Respectful communication that removes contempt and reflects regional sensitivities is essential to reduce resistance and build trust.

What is worldview, framing and language

Worldview shapes how individuals interpret information, influenced by culture, beliefs, and experiences. Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, lead individuals to favour information consistent with existing views.

Framing presents information through a specific lens to guide perception and decision-making. Aligning frames with audience values improves acceptance. Language supports framing by ensuring accessibility and engagement. Avoiding jargon, exaggeration, and partisan tone, and focusing on clear, relevant communication, strengthens understanding and facilitates constructive dialogue in climate and finance contexts.

Why framing and language matter now, more than ever

Climate change impacts, including extreme weather, are intensifying, with the IPCC highlighting that actions this decade will determine outcomes. Immediate mitigation and adaptation are required to avoid exceeding 1.5°C and 2°C thresholds.

Public sentiment data shows regional Australians support structural changes, including levies on polluters and renewable investment, provided policies align with economic interests. Middle ground audiences prioritise long-term employment opportunities over short-term gains and are sensitive to costs. Tailored communication reflecting these priorities improves engagement.

The report argues that traditional ‘jobs versus environment’ narratives are ineffective and polarising. International examples demonstrate that effective framing can support strong climate policies without political division. Economic evidence suggests net-zero transition could generate US$9.2 trillion in opportunities, while climate impacts could push over 100 million people into poverty by 2030, reinforcing the need for effective communication to mobilise investment and action.

Challenges to work through

Measuring the effectiveness of communication strategies remains difficult due to regional language differences and limitations in polling methods, including bias and sampling errors. Evidence from Australian regions highlights the need for localised messaging approaches.

Social and ideological divisions, reinforced by cultural and neurological factors, create barriers to communication. Use of specialised or progressive language can alienate audiences and reduce message effectiveness.

The report recommends increased research, message testing, and adaptation to local contexts. It also recognises that climate discussions can cause stress, suggesting communicators adopt respectful, empathetic approaches and remain aware of emotional dynamics in conversations.

How to use effective framing and language: Dos and don’ts

Effective strategies include aligning messages with shared values such as jobs, security, and community, and framing climate action as economic development rather than moral obligation. Practical actions include using concrete examples, emphasising continuity, and presenting opportunities in renewable investment.

Avoid technical jargon, disaster framing, and terms such as “transition”, which may be interpreted as job loss. Instead, use accessible language such as “investment” or “shift”. Communication should focus on choice rather than obligation, reduce defensiveness, and highlight tangible benefits.

Techniques such as partial agreement, “how” questions, and narrative examples support constructive dialogue. Communicators should pivot conversations towards opportunity, demonstrate points through evidence, and avoid reinforcing opposing frames.

Case studies

Australian political communication demonstrates the effectiveness of value-based framing. Messaging emphasising opportunity, nationalism, and loss aversion resonates with regional audiences, particularly when language reflects local interpretations—for example, avoiding “transition” due to its association with unemployment.

A separate campaign example shows that positive framing, respectful language, and storytelling can shift opinions without alienating audiences, highlighting the importance of tone and narrative in influencing behaviour.

Conclusion

Effective climate communication requires aligning framing and language with audience values to overcome polarisation and support constructive dialogue. Emphasising practical impacts on jobs, communities, and economic outcomes, rather than moral arguments, improves engagement and facilitates collective action towards sustainable outcomes.