In his Kew Gardens speech last week, the new UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy attempted to thread a difficult needle when it comes to communicating global issues to the public. Did he succeed?
Almost since the Development Engagement Lab began tracking public opinion on global issues, climate change has remained in the top three areas of concern for the British public. Climate’s bedfellows come and go – sometimes it’s economic crises; war, conflict and terrorism; pandemics – but with the exception of June’s update, when climate fell to a rare fourth place, concern about climate usually hangs on. It’s one of DEL’s most consistent findings. (Incidentally, this drop in concern for climate coincided with the former government’s de-prioritisation of climate in its foreign policy engagement).
The problem is, the public have a hard time feeling like they can make a difference on climate. It feels too big, too complex, and for the majority of those living in the Global North, it doesn’t feel urgent enough for action. At best, it’s a problem for their kids, their grandkids. So what conveys the urgency of climate change in a way that engages the British public, rather than switching them off? The UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy seems to be onto something:
These are not random events delivered from the heavens. They are failures of politics, of regulation, and of international cooperation. These failures pour fuel onto existing conflicts and regional rivalries, driving extremism, displacing communities and increasing humanitarian need. And it would be a further failure of imagination to hope that they will stay far from our shores. That we can keep them away.
DEL research finds that the most effective strategy is to make climate change personal.
In a survey experiment conducted with YouGov, DEL found that climate messages that get specific about the impacts of climate change on individuals and communities are most successful. It sounds intuitive: ‘Drive the message home.’ But for climate – an issue so monolithic and yet for many in the most privileged, high-consuming parts of the world, absent from daily life – the British public are only beginning to grasp both their accountability and the prescience of what is, arguably, already on our doorstep.
All that said, while the Secretary of State hit on some of the biggest public concerns when it comes to climate – namely flooding and health (second and fourth place in the chart below) – and even smartly brought nature/biodiversity (third place) under the umbrella, he neglected to point to the most mobilizing impact of climate change for the British public, as shown.
Why did the Secretary of State omit the already-tangible impacts of climate change on British food supply chains? Possible, and maybe wisely, he thought this would scare people too much: There is surely a limit for the public and a point where, in the current onslaught of negative news, they just switch off. While research organisations like DEL try to find that limit, Lammy’s speech, for its topic, is notably collaborative, upbeat and inclusive of those communities in the Global South most impacted by climate change. Possibly, a comment about the impact of bird flu on national egg supply would have struck a sour note. Still, when it comes to reaching the British public on climate, the data doesn’t lie.
What else does the new government need to know about communicating global issues?
The Foreign Secretary’s opening gambit on climate begs the question: What else does the new government – and one of the largest classes of new MPs in UK history — need to know about communicating global issues?
Resist the temptation to argue for ‘aid in the national interest’
Another of DEL’s most consistent findings is around what drives the public to support or oppose overseas aid spending in poor countries. Unfortunately, one of the most consistent practices among politicians – especially those new to talking about global issues – is to assume the public only want aid if it enhances the UK’s geopolitical, economic or defense interests. DEL research has found – again and again – that the British public want to hear moral arguments for aid, namely about why ‘doing our bit’ is ‘the right thing to do.’
Even arguments which combine moral and national interest score lower than those based solely on morality. This is true not only regionally, but across almost all demographics, including age, income, education, and political affiliation. Only among men and those who identify as Conservative does the combination of moral and national interest arguments prove as effective as a solely moral one. Even among Conservatives, only thirteen percent favoured a case for aid made solely in the national interest, as shown below.
Which moral messages?
While we patiently wait for the new crop of MPs and policymakers to stop using the national interest argument for aid, it’s worth examining which moral arguments most activate the British public. Interestingly, DEL has found that there is a sharp – but easily mastered – limit to moralizing aid.
As you can see, both religious and legal arguments ring relatively hollow with the British public. That said, the far and away clear winners are ones that also happen to be both easy to convey and contextually flexible: ‘People have a right not to suffer,’ and ‘We should help if we can.’
The context is shifting
The sharp-eyed among you will have noticed that some of these findings date back as far as 2017 – somewhat ripe, in data terms. As the DEL team weigh re-testing what drives the British public to support or oppose overseas aid, we’re eager to hear from those in the sector, academia and advocacy groups about what would be most useful to know. What’s missing from the above, given the shift in government, but also the greater need for humanitarian relief due to global conflict and climate crises? If you have thoughts, please get in touch with del@ucl.ac.uk.