Climate Communication and the Brain With Kris De Meyer
This episode features a conversation with Kris De Meyer, Director of the UCL Climate Action Unit. It was recorded in July 2024.
Kris is a neuroscientist, a science communicator and a science-policy co-production expert, bringing insights from neuroscience and psychology to the domain of climate change. He specialises in how people become entrenched in their beliefs, how this leads to polarisation in society, and how to overcome these conditions.
The Climate Action Unit works to change how scientists, policymakers, businesses, media, civil society organisations and citizens engage with each other about climate change. And Kris is responsible for the neuroscientific basis of the interventions that the unit designs and delivers.
Kris is also a Senior Research Fellow in UCL’s Department of Earth Sciences, has co-produced an award-winning documentary, called Right Between Your Ears, exploring how people views become ingrained, and co-created The Justice Syndicate, a participatory play about how we disagree.
Amongst other things, Kris and I discussed fear and agency, where the conventional wisdom gets things wrong, and why stories about actions taken in response to climate change offer the total package when it comes to stimulating meaningful responses from our audiences.
Additional links:
Visit the Climate Action Unit website
Watch Kris’ brilliant TEDx Talk
Transforming the stories we tell about climate change: from issue to action
Check out Elliot Aronson’s article Fear, Denial, and Sensible Action in the Face of Disasters
Explore the UN Climate Chief’s speech “2 years to save the world”
Read Mike Hulme’s article on “Deadline-ism”
Dickon: Hi and welcome to Communicating Climate Change, a podcast dedicated to helping you do exactly that. I'm Dickon and I'll be your host as we dig deep into the best practises and the worst offences, always looking for ways to help you and me improve our abilities to engage, empower and ultimately activate audiences on climate related issues.
This episode features a conversation with Kris de Meyer, Director of the UCL Climate Action Unit. It was recorded in July 2024. Kris is a neuroscientist, a science communicator, and a science policy co-production expert. Bringing insights from neuroscience and psychology to the domain of climate change, he specialises in how people become entrenched in their beliefs, how this leads to polarisation in society, and how to overcome these conditions. The Climate Action Unit works to change how scientists, policymakers, businesses, media, civil society organisations, and citizens engage with each other about climate change, and Kris is responsible for the neuroscientific basis of the interventions that the unit designs and delivers. Kris is also a senior research fellow in UCL’s Department of Earth Sciences and has co-produced an award-winning documentary called “Right Between Your Ears”, exploring how people's views become ingrained, and co-created “The Justice Syndicate”, a participatory play about how we disagree.
Amongst other things, Kris and I discussed fear and agency, where the conventional wisdom gets things wrong, and why stories about actions taken in response to climate change offer the total package when it comes to stimulating meaningful responses from our audiences. So, let's get on with it. This is Communicating Climate Change with Kris De Meyer.
From your perspective, how can communication best contribute in humanity's response to the climate crisis?
Kris: The conventional wisdom is that once we are concerned about something, we act on it. In reality, it often works the other way around. So, we start to do something and as a result of that we build a deeper engagement, understanding, awareness, and an emotional response in reaction to the thing that we start to become interested in. And that translates itself in how we communicate about pretty much everything else. We communicate about the things we are doing. When we go to the pub with our friends, we are talking about, “Hey, guess what happened to me today? This and that, and then this person said this and I responded in this way.” So we're talking, we're communicating naturally through a sequence of actions of how we are dealing with the challenges that come our way. When it comes to climate, most of the people, very passionate about it, want to talk about the concerns they have, hoping that other people will respond with action. But the psychological more natural thing is for us to do something. And then to share what we are doing and that might then inspire other people in learning from our actions as well. So our answer, and the thing we work on in the Climate Action Unit is, we need to talk about climate change through the actions that we are undertaking to tackle it. And with that, we don't only mean like personal consumer action. Action for us means anything that anyone in society in a certain professional role or politician, a business leader, an investment manager, a journalist, a student, someone working in a school, a lawyer, a farmer, anything that anyone is doing in response to climate change is a climate action. And if we are telling these stories of the things we are doing to tackle climate change at scale, we will start to inspire each other. We will learn from each other what more we can do. And as a result of that, we'll see that groundswell of action building and building and building. Where maybe in five or ten years time, as a society, we'll be doing things that now we can't even imagine.
Dickon: How does the human brain process information and make decisions when confronted with complex issues like climate change?
Kris: The more complex and abstract an issue, the more the response of individuals can diverge, the more it can become different in different individuals. If you're taking the sort of doom and gloom narrative that we've had around climate change for 20-30 years, the way that people can respond to that is some people go like, “Oh my gosh, this is terrible. We need to do something about it. We need to act on it. We need urgent action now.” So that's one sensible response to that. Other people look at doom narrative and they go like, “Oh my gosh, this is too scary. I understand that this is scary, but I've already got so many other things that I need to deal with like, stuff that is happening in the here and now. I need to get my kids from school. I need to finish this job that I need to do. I need to make sure that by the end of the month there's enough money on the table to pay my rent or my mortgage or whatever. So there's lots of other concerns that are getting in the way and most people are going like, “This is too much for me. I'm not going to pay attention to it anymore. I'm just going to switch off and let someone else deal with it.” And then a third response or a third cluster of responses is where people go like, “Hey, this is scary, but, why is that person or that publication or that organisation trying to scare us? There must be something in it for them.” And so they start becoming suspicious and they start to look at the motivations that people might have for using that scary complex picture of of climate change and the effects it will have on society. And then. In today's day and age, you then go on to the Internet, you find websites or alternative information or video clips on YouTube that tell you that, “Yes, it isn't as bad as publication X or person Y made it out to be.” And that then allows people to go to a stage of denial and rejecting the argument. And they usually do so on the basis of: The people that are trying to scare me are doing so for their own benefits. And they are getting something out of it, which is, being able to raise our taxes, take away my freedoms. It's their job. They're making a living out of this, that kind of stuff. And the stronger the rhetoric, the stronger the the scariness of the message, the more you can have a divergent in these responses. And all of these are sensible human brain responses to the same information. But that lands in a different brain with different lived experiences with different predispositions, with different values, with different interests, and so on and so forth.
Dickon: How then does an abundance of abstract concepts further confuse things?
Kris: With these abstract concepts that we are using to talk about climate change: climate change itself, planetary crisis, emergency, net zero, or ESG. The language that we're using, how we talk about what to do about this. The problem there is that each of these concepts can develop their own meaning in the heads of different individuals, and that means that we can start to develop a very different understanding of these terms that we are using. Now, interestingly, there's some psychological research that shows that the more abstract the term is, the more we can develop an emotional connotation to our meaning attached to that term. So, it's not that abstract terms go over people's heads. They can go over people's heads as long as they haven't engaged with them. But the more they engage with them, the more they can get an emotional attachment to that term that can be different from other people's emotional attachment. So, let's take a phrase like net zero. For some people that has positive connotations where people are saying this is the stuff we need to do to tackle climate change. And for other people that can come to hold very negative meanings, very negative connotations, where it then automatically leads to them rejecting every time they heard that term. Because the terms are abstract, we can fill them in with our own meaning. The more abstract the term, the more we can start to feel emotional attachment to our understanding of the term. The more we are setting ourselves up for miscommunication and for fighting with people who have a different understanding of that term. But there are other terms that don't seem to carry that much polarisation in society, as of yet, but that lead to really strong miscommunication between different sectors. And one of the words that we have noticed this with is the word risk. And how the word risk is used differently in the science community and in the economics and finance community. Risk and, as a counterpart, uncertainty, which both sectors like to use very much, have almost the opposite meanings in this climate science community than they have in the economics and finance community. In the science community, uncertainty is often the spread in your data that you try to quantify, whereas in economics uncertainty is fundamentally unquantifiable stuff you don't know. The second you can quantify it, you start calling it risk in economics and in finance. Whereas in climate science, climate scientists, when they talk about risk, have no prior expectation that risk should be quantifiable. They understand that some risks are quantifiable, for example, if you build a house next to a river you can probably quite accurately calculate the risk of exposure to flooding over a number of years, etc. But the kind of things that really worries the climate scientist is all the cascading effects of a climate hazard happening in one place, that leading to social instability, political upheaval, things like food crisis that then lead to conflict. So, all that stuff scientists are worried about, they see as the threats of climate change, they have no expectation they can quantify it. But on the receiving end, the economists are expecting that everything they are being told about climate change is quantifiable because they hear the scientists talking in terms of risk. And that is one place where it doesn't lead to strong polarised discussions of the type that I was hinting at before the net zero, the ESG, how that is becoming polarising. It's much more unnoticed the miscommunication that is happening between these different sectors.
Dickon: How can we become convinced we're right even when we're wrong?
Kris: Oh, I love that question. The human brain, in principle, is capable of believing anything. So, it doesn't necessarily mean that every individual will believe everything that ever comes their way. But in principle, the way the brain works is that it's not really a thing to analyse and think rationally about the world. It's a thing to help us survive basically. But by building representations of the world that make it survive the situation that it's in. And here I mean sort of like on a day-to-day basis, right? It's not like the long term survival, it doesn't work that way. But that means that the way that their brains have resolved that is that they become machines for jumping to conclusions based on past experiences. So, the past experiences build up expectations that are formed in the connections between our brain cells and then those existing connections and the way that new information - a conversation with someone, reading something in a newspaper - activates those connections then means that we are jumping to conclusions based on our understanding of what sits in that event, that piece of information, that conversation with another person, etc. Because of that prior exposure, the lived experience that exposes us to certain types of information, can then manifest itself inside our brains as things that have no more connection with the outside world, but that feel very sensible. And that feel like they're right. You can have beliefs that climate change is happening, that it's man made, and that it is very dangerous if not acted on. But you can also have a set of beliefs that says that climate change isn't happening, or that it's happening but it's not man made. Or that it's happening, yeah, we've got a role to play in it, but it's not going to be dangerous. And of course, all of us who are working on climate change would say that those are incorrect beliefs, that there's a wrong beliefs, but yet the brain of these people who are believing that, believe that that's right. And there's nothing in the way that the brain evolved that would prevent that from happening. In psychology, there is a theory that I really like called the theory of cognitive dissonance, which people often think is the shorthand for being able to point out that other people are inconsistent. But actually all of us are experiencing the impacting effects of cognitive distance all of the time, because what it actually stands for is how our brain adapts itself, its responses, these expectations that it has, when it is being presented with information that violates those expectations. That says like, “hey, this thing that you're believing, that's not right.” And so we have basically two ways that we can respond to that, psychologically, we have two ways that respond to that. One way is that we can say like, “Yeah, but I'm a clever person, so everything that I believe is right,” and then we justify away the challenge to our beliefs. Or you can respond to it, “Ah, you know what? Maybe I didn't get this one right. Let's see how I need to change what I'm thinking about the world.” Everyone basically has moments where they update their beliefs, but there also is that response of batting away any challenge to your beliefs system that you have. So, all of these factors together are having that effect of making sometimes people believe things that are completely and utterly wrong, despite the fact that it feels very right to them.
Dickon: What can neuroscience tell us about how communication could be used to drive a sense of agency in our audiences? And why is that sense of agency important?
Kris: For psychologists, agency is that state where you really know how to deal with a situation where you're not scared, you're not uncertain, you just know what to do and doctors and nurses on the floor of an A&E department are my favourite example. They know how to deal with the emergencies that come through the door. We as lay people do not know how to deal with that. We don't have that agency. Now the way that we develop our agency, as human beings, most of us learn from other people, from seeing other people solve a problem. And in medicine that's even a saying: see one, do one, teach one, is how do you talk about surgery. You watch one, you do one, and then you start teaching them to other people. And that's really the recipe for how we learn to deal with difficult situations. We see someone solve a problem. We then learn from that, and then we might be able to impart our learning to other people. And that concept in psychology is called social learning. Learning from the actions of other people. That is really the crucial component for developing agency, not in us individually, but as a society, where everyone learns from everyone else how to deal with the situation of climate change. And the way that we can do that is through telling these stories of action, telling these stories of what we are doing to tackle the climate crisis. When you are doing that, you mustn't assume that simply because you have figured out how to deal with the situation, that everyone else should just copy you. What you can do is just share your example, share the way that you have found a useful way to put your talents to use in tackling climate change, and do so without expectation that anyone will copy you. But in the end, you will inspire someone, somewhere around the world, and they will take what you do and they will take it some steps forward. Far too often do I hear people say, “Well, I became a vegetarian or a vegan, and it wasn't that difficult. So, therefore you now have to do the same. That's not really working that well, because then you start dragging your finger at other people. You get the psychological reacting against it. Not from everyone. It might work with some people, but some people very strongly you react against you. But if we, without that expectation of persuading other people, share our stories of how we have found a way to meaningfully respond to climate change, then we will inspire other people. We hear a lot of questions asked, “How do you persuade people?” and at the Climate Action Unit we are actually anti-persuasion. Once you try to persuade someone, you will create again that division where some people will be persuaded and some people will move away from you. But if instead you share your expertise, you share your examples, your stories of what you're doing, without that expectation that you'll be persuading someone, you might help someone find their footing on climate change. That's the way that we think. Once we start doing that at scale and we see signs of how this is starting to happen more at scale that that will be much more effective than some people trying to persuade other people of doing X, Y and Z.
Dickon: What role does fear play there? If we instead of telling stories about how we achieved things are telling stories about the challenge, the hurdles, the dangers, what happens then?
Kris: So fear itself is only a driver of action if you already have the agency to deal with that fear. If it's easy to tell someone, “Here's a really scary thing. Here's what you can do. And once you've done that, you shouldn't be scared anymore.” Then fear is a good way to communicate. But if that isn't there, if you can't communicate something that the other person feels is concrete and doable and meaningful. Meaning that it takes away the source of the fear. Then fear will have again, that polarising influence of turning some people into sceptics and deniers, and other people into being paralysed and feeling that it's too late to do anything about it. And the fear itself doesn't build the agency. Again, the knowledge of how you respond to the challenge is what builds the agency. So, that's why one of the insights that we use in the Climate Action Unit is “Fear won't do it”. And it's not that fear doesn't do it for individuals, because you will find some people who say, “I read this really scary book or article and that got me to respond with X, Y and Z.” But that's because those people identified a doable action that they felt was meaningful in response to the fear they were feeling. And sometimes they are also still paralysed by the fear, but still are trying to do as much as they can to act on it. So for individuals it works, but as a strategy it can't work, because it creates exactly the type of divisions that we are seeing in society right now. This became apparent in health psychology in the 1950s, and if you would have asked those psychologists that were doing that research between the 50s and the 70s, if you would have asked them, “What would you predict would happen if you would indiscriminately tell the whole world that it was going to be obliterated by climate change if we didn't act on it?” Then they would probably paint the picture of what we are seeing today as a result. There's a wonderful article by a social psychologist who's now in his 90s, his name is Elliot Aronson, and the title of the article is fear, denial and sensible action in the face of disasters. And it really delves into the way that using fear as a means to get people to to action can actually backfire and can result in people pushing away your communication, your argumentation, of of needing to do something. In the early 2000s, he writes that article, but climate isn't yet the big thing at that moment. So, he writes about other disasters. He writes about terrorism, for example, which of course, after 9/11 was a thing that was really on on people's mind in the US. I use his article so much when I am embroiled in discussions with people who say “No, no, we need to get people more scared about climate change. They're not scared enough yet.” I sometimes hear that, “They're not scared enough yet,” but they're not scared enough yet because they don't want to be scared by this. So, they they will actively push away any attempts of you to scare them even more.
Dickon: I think it was back in April, there was a speech from. Simon Steele, the headline being “Two years to save the planet.” What can you tell us about deadlines?
Kris: OK. So from our perspective, deadlines aren't really helpful. And we're not the first to have pointed that out like one of the very first people to write against deadline was Mike Hulme, who's a professor at Cambridge at the moment. Very deep experience in climate change. He wrote a book in 2008/2009 with a title “Why people disagree about climate change,” which is still accurate to how we're thinking about it today. But his argument and our argument, is that deadlines aren't really helpful because they're not universally driving people to action, and they are setting you up for a failure. Once you hit that deadline moment and it passes, what happens now? Is it too late? Should we give up? Do we set another deadline? What does it mean to be passing a deadline? And so the people who do it do it under the assumption that simply setting the deadline will light a fire under the intentions and the motivations of other people to act. And it does for some, like some people will go like, “Oh my gosh, it means we need to double down.” But again, anytime you put people in front of a choice, you will get different responses from different people and from those of the people who go like. “Bah, I'll just wait and see what happens.” When you then reach that deadline, when they then hear a new one, they go like, “Hey, what happened to the last one?” And so one of the very first deadlines that Mike Hulme wrote about was one that was set in 2008 or 2009 by I think the New Economics Foundation. And it was like 100 months to solve climate change. And then, quietly, the clock disappeared on the website a few months before the deadline was actually reached. And no fuss was made by the people who put it up there. And so what happened with that deadline? Like, what is people's responses to that? And some of us then forget, happily forget we ever took that on, but other people don't forget. And so again, it can feed into that polarisation around climate change. And it's not that deadlines are the only thing that causes polarisation. But it's one thing that causes polarisation. There's another way that deadlines aren't helping, it's that they are sometimes making people hopeless and say that it is too late. So, it's not only the on-the-fence sitters who say, like, “Hey, you know, you've given us your deadline before”. There is also the people who take it serious and who then go like, “Hey, now it's too late because you told me X, Y and Z.” So, for example when the IPCC report came out, the 1.5 degrees report came out, and it said we've got 12 years to half emissions to reach the 1.5 target. In the media, or in some media, that became 12 years to save the planet. And in the minds of some people, especially young people, that became 12 years until its game over for everyone. And, especially when they didn't see a response, a real action response materialise, that's where some people became completely hopeless and said in 12 years time, or in 10 years time, or in 8 years time will all be dead.
Dickon: How does issue engagement change our perception of that issue?
Kris: So, issue engagement is what we use to describe when you're communicating when you want to explain how serious an issue is or how important it is. And what you're doing, when you're doing so, is that you are trying to communicate your understanding of the world and your understanding of that issue to other people. And often you will not find that other people with their brains that are ready to jump to conclusions will understand those issues in the same way as you do. So, for us it's a difficult way of communicating, as opposed to those stories of doing - that's what our brains have been optimised for almost through evolution, understanding the actions of other people, that's much easier to communicate - When you're trying to communicate an issue it becomes much harder because you run into the way that these different words have different understandings. The way that expertise that you build up in one domain makes it easy for you to understand something, but almost closes your ability to understand something else that sits in someone else's domain of expertise. So, whereas I understand that especially people who are academically minded, not only in the science and university communities, but also in the world of think tanks and all that stuff, that they want to communicate issues to other people. It really is very hard.
If I were to put an analogy on it, telling stories of you doing something is like going through the main gate of a castle straight into the brain. If you want to tell us an issue based story, it's like you're trying to get through this little side gate that is really small to get through into that castle, and so it's not as effective at all.
Dickon: Do you have any examples where we could see the kind of difference between an action based or an issue-based approach?
Kris: So, an issue based approach is where you say, “Wildfires here, flooding over there, big, big problems to come for society because the scientists are doing this modelling and they're predicting that.” That's your bog-standard communication about climate at the moment. But it's issue based communication. You're explaining the issues. And the action-based communication version of that is where you are talking about the things that people are doing in response to the problem that they are experiencing. Another example is, 2 years ago, a science journalist sent me this article he was working on on climate anxiety. And the article starts by explaining what climate anxiety is and how people are and why people are experiencing it and just reading that issue based explanation made me become climate anxious in response to, “Oh my gosh, this is terrible.” And then deeper in the article, he had little snippets of stories of things that people had told him that they had started to do in response to their climate anxiety. And I told them just flip your story around, lead with those little snippets of action and then you come to, “Why is this an issue? Why are people doing this? Because we were feeling climate actions and this is what it means.” And so he did that. He put the action up front and he made for a much more engaging and a far less disempowering article than the first draft I looked at.
Dickon: Great example. I've been between the worlds of advocacy and marketing a lot, and that really resonates with me in terms of those two worlds advocacy, which is pure issue: bang bang, bang, bang, bang on the head. And marketing that goes, “Hey, got a problem, here's how you solve it. Pay here.”
Kris: Absolutely. Outside of the realm of climate change, we're always using action-based communication, or most of the time using action-based communication. Only when it comes to the most important topic on the planet do we switch to the least effective way of communicating.
Dickon: What's the single-most important aspect of communication that we should be paying attention to in our communication endeavours?
Kris: Tell stories of action. Tell stories of action. Tell stories of action. They help other people to understand what they can do. They're also the best way to communicate how serious the problem is because we actually look at what other people are doing around us to help us to understand how serious an issue is. And the third thing is that they would then start forming that antidote against this mistaken idea, that lots of people have, that nothing is happening on climate change. Not enough is happening on climate change, but stuff is happening and has been happening. I recently read a paper by an economist colleague at UCL, who had calculated that we are probably avoiding about two gigatons of emissions per year at the moment with the emissions reductions that we have already done. So, if we really hadn't done anything, we'd be belting out about two gigatons per year more, if I remember the number right it was something of that order than we are currently doing. So you can't say we haven't done anything. We've not done enough. But the stories that led to that reduction of two gigatons are underappreciated by the people who are saying nothing has happened.
Dickon: Conversely, what's the biggest mistake that you see communicators make when attempting to engage the public on climate change issues?
Kris: Thinking that generating an emotional response in other people is the most important thing that you should be doing. I see this so often, this idea that you just need to speak to people's emotions, and then change will happen. It ain't going to happen like that. Speaking to people's emotions is a sign that you are getting through to them. That you are touching them. But actually, they could be misunderstanding completely what you are seeing and they could be responding with anger or sadness or fear because they misunderstood you, not because they understood you. So, it's just a sign that you got through to them but it's not a sign that they will act on it, that they agree with what you're saying, none of those things.
Dickon: We put a high price on emotion, Kris, in all kinds of communicative fields. Are you saying that it's not as important as we think it is or it's not important at all for me as a communicator, what do I do in response to that?
Kris: OK, that's such a good question. So, emotions are both the most important and the least important thing in this entire debate. And the most important because for every individual that feels an emotional response in relation to a piece of communication, it is the most important thing, your emotional response that you’re feeling at that moment in time is the only thing that matters. At that individual level. When you're thinking that it then gives you a strategy to get people to act on climate change, that's where we are vastly overrating them. Emotions are unpredictable drivers of action. Psychologically, it's far more correct to think of them as the consequences of action. You do something, you feel something. You read something, you feel despair, hope, whatever. But when you feel something, it doesn't automatically lead to a predictable action. What people do in response to their feelings very much depends on their context, on their ability to act, on their agency, and so forth. So, that's why I say they're not predictable drivers of action. They are unpredictable drivers of action, and they're much more usefully thought of as the consequences of doing something, rather than the drivers of doing something.
Dickon: Wow, food for thought, man. Thank you.
Kris: My pleasure. And of course, emotions are still important in that they are that sign of did you get through to your audience, right? But it doesn't then mean that they will do something with that emotion. I've worked with some people who've been in the space for far longer than I have. One of them was one of the first people in the UK to link the arts community to the climate science community through an organisation called Tipping Point. His namee is Peter Gingold. And he learned through the trial and error of the 10 years that they ran the organisation that you can generate the strongest emotional response in people with an artful representation, with a theatre piece, whatever. It doesn't mean that they will do anything with that. So, that was his learning out of that. “Yeah, we could make people feel something, but what did they do in response?”
It was a real joy talking to Kris, but what in particular stuck with you from our conversation? What will you take from it and alley to your own work? For me, it was. How much Kris’ insights about the brain resonated with the reported experiences of previous guests as well as my own experience of communicating climate change. Specifically, I was reminded of my conversation with Hikaru Hayakawa from Climate Cardinals and his mention of language barriers existing not just between different nations or cultures, but also across disparate disciplines. This aligns perfectly with Kris’ description of how different groups can develop different interpretations of abstract concepts. Then, my conversations with Katherine Dunn from the Oxford Climate Journalism Network and her insights on how action-based stories make climate news more compelling and relatable. And with Matt Scott from Project Drawdown, who works to uncover the stories coming out of the grassroots, showing how regular folks are making a difference. Both of these perspectives are Kris’ insights incarnate. All these leading lights and rising stars in the climate communications constellation, they're tapping into something fundamental, and Kris has helped fill the gaps about what it is and why it works. Then finally, I've really been thinking about all the shapes and sizes of climate action that have been raised in episodes of this podcast. From listening to specific tracks on Spotify to translating climate science into another language than English, maybe moving your pension or even marching in the streets. I hope these stories of action and agency have contributed to your sense of being able to contribute in shaping this saga, not just as a climate communicator, but as a person out there living life, hanging out with friends, and doing the things that you love to do. So, That's what I'll be taking with me. But how about you? What did you hear? What will you be incorporating into your communications endeavours?
Thanks to Kris de Meyer for sharing his time and insight with the show. It was great. You can find links to some relevant resources in the show notes. Thanks also to you for listening to communicating climate change. If you enjoyed this episode, why not leave it a rating or a review? Your feedback not only helps to shine a light on the guests and themes that resonate with you the most, but also boosts visibility, meaning the series reaches more people, expanding the community and driving the conversation forward. After all, that's what it's all about. You can find more episodes wherever you get your podcasts or by subscribing so you never miss out. You can find Communicating Climate Change on LinkedIn too. And if you think the series would be of interest to friends or colleagues, why not point them in the right direction? Remember, each and every episode attempts to add to our toolkits. To help us develop the knowledge and the criticality that we'll need for this complicated task. So, be sure to stay tuned for more. For anything else, just head over to communicatingclimatechange.com until next time, take care.
