Four communication strategies that block change toward sustainability

The major challenges of our time—especially climate change—demand deep, sometimes uncomfortable and unpopular transformations. Opponents of change often resort to communication strategies that obstruct progress.

A research team (Lamb et al., 2020) has identified four types of communication strategies frequently used to delay comprehensive climate action.

Communication Against Change

1. Shifting Responsibility

This strategy passes the burden of action onto others—for example, from consumers to companies, from companies to policymakers, or from politicians to voters. Arguments might include:

• “There’s no point in taking small actions when others have much more influence.” (“What about China?!”)
• “Why should we make sacrifices while others profit from our restrictions?” (Free-rider problem).

2. Downplaying the Need for Change

This approach suggests that only minor, convenient adjustments are needed—such as developing “clean fossil fuels” or increasing energy efficiency. It also includes solutions that rely on new technologies (e.g., “CO₂ vacuums”), implying that behavior does not need to change. While such measures may create the illusion of action, they often distract from the need for broader transformation.

3. Emphasizing the Downsides

Opponents of change highlight potential negative consequences, such as:

• Social injustices (“This will cost jobs, harm commuters, and hurt the working class.”)
• A decline in living standards (“Do we really want to go back to the Stone Age?”).

This strategy frames transformation as a loss rather than an opportunity.

4. Spreading Fatalism

This argument suggests that change is already too late—that nothing can be done because it would be “too little, too late.” The only option, according to this view, is to accept and adapt to the inevitable. This approach fosters paralyzing fatalism.

Countering These Arguments

These strategies are not limited to climate discussions—they can obstruct any necessary transformation. To ensure progress, we must actively counter these narratives. Here are some key counterarguments in the context of sustainability:

• While some goals may no longer be achievable (response to Strategy 4), every fraction of a degree of avoided global warming matters. Climate action is not an “all-or-nothing” scenario—it’s a case of “the more, the better.”
• Incremental improvements (Strategy 2) are not enough. What’s needed is a radical, disruptive transformation across nearly all economic sectors. The sooner businesses and policymakers acknowledge this, the better they can prepare—for example, by building new structures and training employees.
• Instead of framing change as scarcity and sacrifice (Strategy 3), we should paint a positive vision of the future. Every crisis is also an opportunity to actively shape a desirable future. Established companies can develop new business models, and startups can fill emerging market gaps.
• The key is understanding that these transformations must happen across all sectors simultaneously. Instead of shifting responsibility (Strategy 1), everyone should ask: “What is my role in shaping a better future?”

Source: Lamb, W. F., Mattioli, G., Levi, S., Roberts, J. T., Capstick, S., Creutzig, F., Minx, J. C., Müller-Hansen, F., Culhane, T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Discourses of climate delay. Global Sustainability, 3, 1-5.

For a German version of this article, see https://wissensdialoge.de/veraenderungen_verhindern/