New book offers tips to translate climate science into political gains

At a time when climate politics in the United States and globally remain deeply polarized, Will Hackman, a climate advocate and political operative, argues that the climate movement needs a new language — one rooted less in doom, guilt and abstract planetary crisis, and more in people’s everyday lives, health, safety, costs and communities. In his new book, Radically Reframing Climate Change: A Guide to Saving Ourselves, he makes the case that climate advocates have too often spoken to those who already agree with them, while failing to reach people who may be cautious, doubtful or simply disconnected from the issue. The challenge, he says, is not only scientific or technological. It is political, cultural and communicative.

In the United States, climate change remains politically polarized, with surveys showing that Republicans are less likely than Democrats to view it as an urgent threat, making climate messaging particularly challenging across ideological divides. Mongabay spoke with Hackman over video call about climate messaging, grassroots activism, fossil fuels, political polarization, and why he believes the climate movement must rebuild, creating a broader and more hopeful constituency. Mongabay: You write in your book that much of climate messaging has been framed around fear, guilt and apocalypse. Is that still the right way to talk about climate change?

Will Hackman: I think the nature-based messages — polar bears, melting glaciers, “there is no planet B,” “save the planet,” “world on fire” — work for people who already care about climate change. But they do not work to expand our audience. The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication has identified six different audiences, and people respond differently to climate change depending on where they are [within those audiences]. For the alarmed and concerned categories, those messages may work.

But for people who are cautious or doubtful, we need different messages and different tactics. We have reached a ceiling. We are not expanding the base of support on climate change, and we know that because we are not making enough progress. Climate change remains politically polarized, and many gains are being rolled back.

I approached the book by asking: where are the gaps in the climate movement? What do we need to do to build broader support for the policies we need? One major gap is that we have not been able to expand beyond the true believers. Not everyone is receptive to climate change in the same way.

But according to the Yale research, only about 10% of people are in the dismissive category — people for whom rejecting climate change is part of their identity. That means many more people are still reachable if we approach them differently. Every campaign has to answer two questions: who are we trying to reach, and how do we want to say what we are trying to say? You have to spend time thinking about your audience and how they will receive your message.

You cannot just go out with what you want to say and force that message onto people. I don’t think enough communicators, advocates and activists in the climate movement are thinking about this in the right way. They keep saying what they want to say over and over again, hoping people will magically believe them.

But they are often using their own language, not the language of the people they are trying to reach. Mongabay: So how do you broaden that constituency beyond people who already believe urgent climate action is needed? Will Hackman: One way is to make it about humans, not about saving the planet or saving nature. I believe in a self-interested climate message.

We are not doing this to save the planet. We are doing this to save ourselves. This is about the future sustainability of human civilization. We need to stabilize the climate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions so that we can protect the ecosystems we depend on for survival.

So, let’s talk about public health. Let’s talk about pollen counts, allergies, lung inflammation, asthma and other conditions made worse by climate change. Let’s talk about hurricanes, floods and fires, but not only from 30,000 feet. Let’s talk about what happened in those communities and what it took for people to rebuild.

There are so many ways to make this more specific to humans. It is not about saving the planet. It is about saving us. It is not just a climate crisis; it is a humanity crisis.

I have found that this approach can be received well by Republicans and conservatives. I live in a rural and conservative part of Virginia. When you start talking to people about what climate change means to them personally and locally — why they have a self-interest in the issue — they respond. For many years, climate activists have been seen as people telling others what they cannot do: you cannot fly, you cannot eat meat, you cannot drive trucks.

There is this perception that climate activists want to roll back human development, reduce quality of life, create scarcity or take away progress. I think that framing is fundamentally flawed. Mongabay: Are you seeing that kind of self-interested climate messaging translate into political or policy gains, or is it still anecdotal? Will Hackman: I have two answers.

First, I am just one voice, and my book has only recently come out. A lot of climate activists, messengers and authors are still using the old way of communicating. So, it will take time for this new approach — self-interested climate messaging, human impacts, climate optimism — to translate into broader awareness. Every article that comes out on climate change still tends to say: humans are destroying the Earth, polar bears are dying, there is no planet B.

So, journalists, policymakers, educators, academics, authors and activists all need to pull in the same direction. People are also still using the carbon footprint to blame and shame each other. You see it all the time when people go after Taylor Swift or Al Gore for flying on a private jet.

But many people still do not know that the carbon footprint idea was popularized by British Petroleum. That awareness will take time to spread.

But yes, I am seeing some things work in Republican areas. In Front Royal, Virginia, where I live, the community decided to call its Earth Day event “Lone Pine Day” instead of Earth Day. There is a pine tree that overlooks the town, up in Shenandoah National Park. Everybody knows it.

It is a symbol of the town. So instead of framing the event as Earth Day, they framed it as a celebration of local conservation. The Shenandoah National Park Trust, the park, tree stewards, the Dark Sky Committee and other groups all came together. The whole town came out.

It was about conservation, local pride and what people can do where they live. That little switch in messaging reflected the values of the town. I had a booth there for my book. The title has “climate change” right on the cover.

At Georgetown during D.C. Climate Week 2026, I had about 50 people and sold 15 books. At Politics and Prose, I had around 80 people and sold 27 books. At Lone Pine Day, in a 70% Republican town, I sold 42 books.

That was remarkable. People came by because I told them I was a local author. I live here. I am part of the community.

That opened the door to conversations. Mongabay: On the other side, there is a very well-funded disinformation and greenwashing machine. Is the problem only messaging, or is the movement up against something much bigger? Will Hackman: It is definitely bigger than messaging.

But messaging still matters. One person came up to me and said, “I don’t know about climate change. I don’t really know if that’s happening.

But I really believe in improving tree canopy cover.” We then had a great conversation about tree canopy in cities, urban heat, public health and disadvantaged communities. He had a very progressive mindset on tree cover. Maybe he did not accept the language of climate change, but we could work together on improving tree canopy, which is a climate solution. In West Virginia, every county is at risk of flooding.

You can talk to people there about flood-prepared communities, disaster planning and making communities safer. Use the language of safety. Use the language of disaster planning. You can have those conversations without starting with the words “climate change.” But yes, there is also a new climate denialism.

The old denialism said climate change was a hoax. The new denialism accepts that climate change is happening and that humans contribute to it, but says it is too expensive or too big to solve. That is a very effective argument. It plays on people’s fear of cost: your electricity bills are going up, your heating and cooling costs are going up, and climate policy will make it worse.

So we have to respond to that. The conversation has moved beyond “keep it in the ground.” We need to have a serious conversation about cost. Mongabay: You are critical of how the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has been communicated.

Why? Will Hackman: I am frustrated that Democrats have not fought harder for the Inflation Reduction Act. I think bringing it back should be a litmus test for congressional Democrats going into the midterm elections. Everybody is talking about AI data centers and utility bills.

Data centers are making electricity bills go up, yes. But rolling back the Inflation Reduction Act is also making electricity more expensive. The tax credits for wind and solar were expected to bring a massive amount of new clean energy capacity onto the grid over the next five to 10 years. Some estimates suggest 150 to 200 gigawatts of new clean energy capacity could have been added because of those credits.

When you eliminate that supply at a time when demand is rising, prices go up. That is basic supply and demand. The IRA was framed as a climate policy.

But if you frame it around costs and utility bills, I think more people understand it. People care about their electricity bills. Democrats could say: this policy was reducing your utility costs, and by rolling it back, your costs are going up. Don’t frame it around greenhouse gas emissions first.

Frame it around affordability and energy security. Republicans used to talk about “all-of-the-above energy” to justify more coal and gas. Democrats can reclaim that language to include cheap, affordable renewable energy. Mongabay: What do you think the climate or environmental movement has gotten right?

Will Hackman: The environmental movement has achieved many important things over the past 50, 100 or even 200 years. Rachel Carson and pesticide awareness. Cleaning up the ozone layer. Oil spills.

The Cuyahoga River. Erin Brockovich. DuPont and Chemours pollution. What do all those stories have in common?

Human impact. People connected to Erin Brockovich and Dark Waters because they were human stories. They were about communities getting sick from pollution. We know that works.

When people see the impacts on themselves, they get together and make change. We are all standing on the shoulders of people who came before us in the environmental movement.

But climate change is different from cleaning up a river or an oil spill. The policy solutions are different. The scale is different. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, installing renewable energy and ending fossil fuel subsidies are very different from passing a regulation to clean up wastewater discharge.

We are in a new moment. A lot of people are trying to use the old language of the environmental movement to meet the moment of climate change, and it is not working. Mongabay: In the book, you suggest several ways to reframe climate change. Which ones matter most to you?

Will Hackman: I like the message: “The Earth doesn’t care about you.” I delivered that in a TED Talk a few years ago. It is meant as the opposite of the “save the planet” message. I have seen a Category 5 hurricane wipe a town off the map in Waveland, Mississippi. I have seen the impact of forest fires.

Anyone who has been in a climate emergency understands how small we are in relation to the natural world. The planet does not need to be saved. It will be fine. We are the ones who need saving. “The Earth doesn’t care about you” pushes the responsibility back to us.

We are doing this for ourselves. We are trying to save ourselves, not the planet. I also like the question: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” It was used by Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter, and Donald Trump has used it too. It channels resentment and asks people to evaluate their lived reality.

I want to use that within climate framing. At the end of a four-year presidential term, people can ask: are we better off on climate, health, pollution, electricity bills and environmental protections than we were four years ago? Another question I ask is: “What does climate change personally mean to you?” That makes the issue direct and personal. Asking questions forces people to engage.

If you just tell people something, they may not listen. But when you ask a question, they have to participate in the answer. Mongabay: How does better messaging translate into political urgency? Will Hackman: My book has action chapters on making change at the personal, community and national levels.

I think you start with each of those and build up. The climate movement is in a wilderness right now. A lot has failed recently — our messages, our tactics, our energy and enthusiasm. Since the 2024 [U.S. presidential] election, many people have been looking for a way forward.

We need new messages that connect with more people. But we also need to rebuild empowerment within ourselves. The first action chapter in my book is about rebuilding personal empowerment, and it is grounded in optimism. You cannot build an effective movement on doomism and “world on fire” messages.

People need a vision of a hopeful future. They need to know what they are working toward. Everyone knows what the end of the world looks like because we have endless movies and TV shows about it.

But we do not have a clear vision of what solving climate change looks like. Once people feel empowered personally, they can make change at the community level. Subnational action is incredibly important, especially when the federal government is failing. We can make real change in the places we live because we are more invested in them.

That is how you build a grassroots movement. It cannot simply trickle down from advocacy groups in Washington, D.C., telling people around the country what to do. We have to rebuild the grassroots base. Mongabay: You argue that the United States is central to global climate governance.

Given current U.S. politics, is this a major setback for the global response? Will Hackman: Yes, absolutely. It is a major setback. When there are setbacks at the federal level, subnational action becomes more important.

States like California, New York, Illinois and Virginia can still act. Mayors and governors can band together. Cities can still move forward. That was the idea behind the [America Is All In] coalition.

Many places across the United States can remain committed to climate action even if the federal government is not. But we have narrow windows. Federal backsliding harms our ability to solve climate change. We still need federal climate legislation.

We need to end fossil fuel subsidies. Four years without federal leadership absolutely sets us back. The Paris Agreement is an incredible framework because it allows for backsliding by individual countries. It is built for fluctuation.

But I do not believe we can solve climate change without U.S. leadership. The United States has been the largest historical emitter for more than 100 years. It is still one of the top emitters today. And when you include U.S. fossil fuel exports — oil, gas and coal exported to countries around the world — our responsibility becomes even larger.

The United States is the largest oil producer in the world and the largest natural gas producer in the world. We are dominating fossil fuel production. So, the U.S. has both a historical and current responsibility. Mongabay: What is one uncomfortable truth fossil fuel defenders refuse to confront?

Will Hackman: They are sacrificing the future for short-term greed. Many people who work in oil and coal companies have children. I think they partly know what they are doing. Or maybe they think it does not matter.

I do not know what is in the hearts and minds of people at the American Petroleum Institute or elsewhere. I understand that they look at future energy demand and say the United States has cheap fossil fuel energy and should supply it.

But we are racing toward a cliff when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. At least invest in reducing emissions from existing operations. We are going to have fossil fuels for decades. That is reality.

So can we at least have an adult conversation about reducing emissions from pipelines, flaring and other operations? Right now, we are not having that adult conversation. It is still too much all or nothing — climate change is a hoax, the Green New Deal is a scam.

But there are real things we could do to reduce emissions. The true obstacles to solving climate change are not technological or scientific. They are polarization, paralysis, stale and ineffective messaging, and disengagement. A lot of people disengage from voting.

That is a big problem. The biggest threat to democracy is not only authoritarianism. It is apathy and disengagement. If we can use better language, reduce polarization, make people feel empowered and keep them engaged, we can move closer to solving climate change.

Mongabay: Ten years from now, what would success look like to you? Will Hackman: The ultimate measure of success in the Paris Agreement is keeping warming to no more than 2° Celsius [3.6° Fahrenheit] by 2100. Right now, we are around 1.2 or 1.3°C [2.2-2.3°F] above preindustrial levels. We briefly hit 1.5[°C, or 2.7°F], but that does not count until it is sustained as a global average over several years.

So, the question is: when do we hit 2°? Do we hit it by 2050, or can we do everything possible to keep warming below 2° by 2100? That is the global goal.

But that is still a very different world from the one we live in today. It means climate change will get worse than it currently is. We have to build a world that can be sustainable at hotter thresholds. For my book, success would mean people are thinking about climate change in a more personal, human and local way.

It would mean they vote for people who care about climate change. It would mean they feel empowered to make change in their own lives and have more effective conversations with people around them. If people take those steps, that will be how I measure success. And I believe that can contribute to the policies we need to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Banner image: Will Hackman at an Earth Day event in Washington, D.C. He argues that effective climate messaging should be framed around protecting people and communities, rather than saving the planet. Photo courtesy of Will Hackman. FEEDBACK: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post.

If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.