When you think about climate advocates, you'll likely picture left-leaning environmentalists who live in cities. This group has contributed to building public support for climate action worldwide, through protests, petitions, lobbying and so on.
Authors
- Xiongzhi Wang
Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Environmental Social Science, Australian National University
- Kelly Fielding
Professor of Environmental Psychology, The University of Queensland
- Rebecca Colvin
Associate Professor in Social Science, Australian National University
- Robyn Gulliver
Honorary Research Fellow in Social Science, The University of Queensland
- Winnifred Louis
Professor of Social Psychology, The University of Queensland
While a majority of Australians understand that climate change is happening and that humans are the main cause, there are still holdout groups. Acceptance of the fact that climate change is largely caused by humans sits at 60% of Australians, well below other countries.
Holdout groups in Australia can include people associated with political conservatism, the business sector , farming, the resource sector , some religious groups and some sports fans . For these groups, climate advocacy by left-leaning environmentalists may be limited in its effectiveness.
How do you reach these groups? Our new research points to one solution: unconventional climate advocates. That is, those not from the stereotypical background and who belong to holdout groups. Think of groups such as Farmers for Climate Action and the Investor Group on Climate Change .
These individuals and groups can play a crucial role in expanding the base of the climate movement - without necessarily working with mainstream climate groups. Better still, we found these unconventional advocates tend to receive more sympathetic media coverage.
Who are these unconventional advocates?
We distinguish two types of unconventional climate advocates -role-based and bridge-builders.
Role-based advocates come from groups not typically associated with climate advocacy, such as Australian Parents for Climate Action, Doctors for the Environment, Vets for Climate Action and Australian Firefighters Climate Alliance. These advocates broaden our perception of who engages in climate advocacy.
Bridge-builders come from groups with a history of tension with environmentalists and environmental issues. They can often span the divide between their group and the broader climate movement. These groups include Farmers for Climate Action, Investor Group on Climate Change, Hunter Jobs Alliance and Australian Religious Response to Climate Change.
Why do they matter?
Unconventional advocates are vital because they can reach a broader section of the population. This is because we are more likely to listen to insiders: people from groups we identify with who share our values and beliefs. We also pay more attention to messages when they come from a surprising source and when they go against perceived interests.
A farmer advocating for climate action is more likely to resonate with other farmers than city-based environmentalists, for instance. Similarly, if you expect farmers to be opposed to climate action, you're more likely to pay attention to their message than if it came from an environmentalist.
Our research shows these groups are not mainstream environmentalists. They exist on the periphery of the climate movement.
Using social network analysis, we mapped the connections between more than 3,000 climate advocacy groups in Australia. This showed us unconventional advocates are less connected to traditional environmental groups such as Greenpeace Australia Pacific or the Australian Conservation Foundation.
This distance may actually be advantageous. By maintaining a degree of independence from the mainstream environmental movement, unconventional advocates can avoid being dismissed as "greenies" - an unpopular group for some people in rural areas. Farmers advocating for climate action may be more effective if they're not seen as aligned with environmentalists who might be viewed with suspicion in rural communities.
Does unconventional advocacy work?
By one metric, unconventional advocacy does work. These individuals and groups broadly receive more sympathetic media coverage.
In recent research , we analysed more than 17,000 Australian media articles published between 2017 and 2022 mentioning unconventional and more stereotypical environmentalist climate advocacy groups.
We found Greenpeace Australia Pacific and other established groups received the most media coverage overall. Disruptive groups such as Extinction Rebellion tended to be framed negatively, with a focus on conflict and arrests. The negativity was most pronounced in articles published by News Corp, owned by the conservative media figure Rupert Murdoch.
Unconventional advocates received less media coverage than other types of advocates. When they did receive coverage, it was generally more sympathetic. Articles tended to focus on their achievements and to use less confrontational language, even from conservative-leaning media outlets.
This suggests unconventional advocates are well positioned to shift public opinion in holdout groups and build a broader base of support for climate action.
Unconventional advocates for unprecedented times
In Australia and in many other countries, climate action has become politicised - often along party lines. Holdout groups are a minority, but a large minority. To actually respond to the increasing threat of climate change will require building a bigger base of support.
Unconventional advocates offer a way to disrupt hardened divides, expand the range of voices in the movement and engage communities and groups often left out of the conversation.
Xiongzhi Wang works as a postdoc with his salary coming from the Australian Research Council (project DP220103155) which funds the research related to this article.
Kelly Fielding received funding from Australian Research Council DP220103155 for the research related to this article. She currently donates to Greenpeace Australia.
Rebecca Colvin serves on advisory/research committees/panels for: the Australian Museum's Climate Solutions Centre; The Climate Risk Group; The Blueprint Institute; RE-Alliance; the NSW Environmental Trust. She is a non-executive member of the Board of the NSW Government's EnergyCo. She receives funding from The Australian Research Council (DP220103155 and DE230101151).
Robyn Gulliver receives funding from the Climate Social Science Network. She has worked for and volunteers for a range of environmental advocacy groups.
Winnifred Louis receives funding from the Australian Research Council (project DP220103155) for the research related to this article. She has been a longstanding advocate for environmental and climate action but is not affiliated with any groups mentioned here.
