Hayhoe and Fisher: Stop framing climate change as partisan
Scientists argue summer disasters show climate impacts transcend politics and should be communicated through everyday concerns, not ideology.
What to know
- Hayhoe and Fisher argue climate change should be discussed as a universal challenge affecting health, finances, and livelihoods, not as a partisan political issue.
- Survey of climate communicators found most prioritize explaining what's happening and why it matters, not advocating for specific candidates or policies.
- Public discourse on climate remains polarized and infrequent—41% of Americans and just under half of Canadians engage with climate information less than once weekly.
- Effective climate messaging connects impacts to everyday concerns; one respondent notes depolarizing communication doesn't preclude scrutiny of political responses.
Climate change should be communicated as a shared, apolitical challenge affecting all people regardless of voting patterns.
-
“This summer of disasters has shown us that climate impacts are not political, and it is past time we stopped talking about them as if they were.”
fisherdanar.bsky.social · Bluesky ↗
Depolarizing climate communication should focus on health and livelihood impacts while still subjecting policy solutions to political debate.
-
“Making climate communication less partisan doesn't mean avoiding politics. Climate change can be communicated through health, livelihoods and local experience, etc., while the political choices about how we respond still deserve scrutiny.”
ianhall.bsky.social · Bluesky ↗
“A flood doesn't knock on your door and ask who you voted for in the last election before it sweeps your house away, nor does wildfire smoke distinguish between Republicans and Democrats before it chokes the air.”
Katharine Hayhoe and Dana R. Fisher, Climate scientists · TIME ↗
Katharine Hayhoe Climate scientist and communicatorDana R. Fisher Climate scientist and communicator
How it unfolded 3 developments, newest first · click a bar or a number to jump articlesposts
-
3
Fisher amplifies piece on social media, highlights communicator lessons
Dana R. Fisher posts the TIME article to Bluesky, emphasizing the core message that climate impacts are not political and highlighting lessons from climate communicators about effective messaging.
“This summer of disasters has shown us that climate impacts are not political, and it is past time we stopped talking about them as if they were.”
— fisherdanar.bsky.social -
F
My new piece with @katharinehayhoe.com is out a TIME, which highlights what we all need to learn from climate communicators: “This summer of disasters has shown us that climate impacts are not political, and it is past time we stopped talking about them as if they were.”
2 more of the top 3 · 7 posts in this stretch
-
S
'People who raise awareness about climate change know that how you communicate your message matters, and there’s much to learn from them.'' Our local observation based on almost two decades of experience in dealing with manufactured climate bunk is that partisan thinking about climate change is an artificial phenomenon, engineered by right-leaning…
-
K
Climate impacts are not partisan. And caring about our homes, health, families, and futures shouldn’t be either. @fisherdanar.bsky.social & I look at what climate communicators can teach us about connecting climate change to the things people already care about most. Read more:
-
-
2
Commentator distinguishes depolarizing communication from political scrutiny
A respondent on Bluesky (@ianhall.bsky.social) offers a nuanced take, arguing that making climate communication less partisan does not mean avoiding politics—rather, climate impacts can be framed through health, livelihoods, and local experience while still subjecting policy responses to political scrutiny.
“Making climate communication less partisan doesn't mean avoiding politics. Climate change can be communicated through health, livelihoods and local experience, etc., while the political choices about how we respond still deserve scrutiny.”
— ianhall.bsky.social -
I
For me, a useful distinction here: making climate communication less partisan doesn’t mean avoiding politics. Climate change can be communicated through health, livelihoods and local experience, etc., while the political choices about how we respond still deserve scrutiny.
-
-
1
Hayhoe and Fisher publish TIME op-ed on depolarizing climate communication
Climate scientists Katharine Hayhoe and Dana R. Fisher release an opinion piece arguing that climate change should not be discussed as a partisan issue, since its impacts affect all people regardless of political affiliation. They cite a survey of climate communicators and note that effective messaging connects climate impacts to everyday concerns like health, finances, and local experience.
-
first by Time, 2d ago
-
What people are saying 3 voices from 1 site · best of 8 · verbatim
- Sep 22
-
B
#ResistanceEarth Today's hyper-polarized environment has turned "climate change" into a partisan issue. We need to remove those quotation marks, take climate change out of political rhetoric, and connect it directly to people's lives, livelihoods, finances and health.
- Sep 21
-
M
100%! The climate doesn't care if we are Democrats or Republicans: When we mess with it, it messes with us (and it bats last). Most Americans are concerned about climate change. Let's set aside partisan differences & solve this problem before it messes more with what we love. @katharinehayhoe.com
-
C
Trigger Warning! 'Window of Opportunity' Alert! "We know that climate shocks, like the ones we’ve experienced this summer, open windows of opportunity"