The Climate Code: New Playbook Ditches 'Net Zero' for Health and Costs

NEW YORK, NY – June 17, 2026 – As corporations and political leaders increasingly retreat into a strategic silence on climate change, a landmark new study suggests they are making a profound miscalculation. Contrary to the growing trend of "climate hushing," new research reveals that public support for climate action remains robust across the ideological spectrum, waiting to be unlocked by a radically different vocabulary—one that trades technical jargon for tangible, kitchen-table concerns.

The comprehensive report, "Fixing Climate Communications," released today by the Potential Energy Coalition with support from The Rockefeller Foundation, offers an evidence-based playbook for breaking the political deadlock. Drawing on extensive surveys of over 83,000 people across six of the world's largest economies, the findings argue that the path to building consensus lies not in avoiding the topic, but in reframing it around health, household costs, and pollution. The data suggests that for years, climate advocates may have been speaking the wrong language.

The Anatomy of a Winning Message

The study dismantles much of the conventional wisdom surrounding climate communication. It finds that abstract terms like "net zero"—a cornerstone of corporate and governmental policy—are dead on arrival with the public. In fact, "achieving net zero" ranked last among nine environmental priorities in every single country surveyed. Similarly, long-favored economic frames like "creating green jobs" and "energy innovation" were found to be surprisingly weak motivators for action, consistently underperforming in six years of historical data.

Instead, the research identifies a powerful trio of principles for effective communication. First, lead with the everyday consequences of a changing climate, from extreme weather to rising insurance premiums. Second, make the cause concrete by framing it simply as "pollution"—a term that the study found makes the problem feel 10-20% more solvable while reducing polarization. Finally, frame the transition to clean energy as additive, not restrictive, by emphasizing what it delivers: local availability, lower costs, and energy independence.

"This is not about whether to talk about climate, but how," said John Marshall, Executive Chair at Potential Energy Coalition. He argued for moving "beyond narrow, easily politicized frames and connecting instead to the real material costs, impacts, and everyday concerns that can significantly expand public support."

The data is stark. Messages about the direct consequences of climate change proved to be twice as effective at driving support for action as the "side door" approach of focusing on jobs and innovation. When the conversation shifts to the impact of pollution on respiratory health, the unfair costs borne by ordinary households, or the instability of relying on volatile global energy markets, people listen and support for solutions grows—by an average of 10 percentage points across all countries and political affiliations.

The Strategic Blunder of 'Climate Hushing'

The study arrives at a critical juncture. Recent research has documented a significant retreat from climate-related discourse in public and corporate spheres. GlobeScan research cited in the report shows the share of consumers seeing sustainability messaging plummeted from 49% in 2023 to just 36% in 2025. During the same period, mentions of climate and ESG issues on S&P 500 earnings calls have dropped by roughly three-quarters.

The "Fixing Climate Communications" report argues this silence is a losing strategy, based on a false premise that the public is tired of the issue. The research confirms that roughly two-thirds of the global population still supports immediate government action on climate change, a figure that has remained stable for years. The problem isn't fatigue; it's ineffective messaging.

"The climate crisis is already making it harder for people around the world to feed their families, get and work jobs, and pursue lives of dignity," said Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, President of The Rockefeller Foundation. "Meeting this challenge with the urgency it demands requires speaking about it in ways that resonate and motivate."

Perhaps the most compelling evidence against climate hushing is the study's finding on political polarization. After exposure to a single effective message, the increase in support for climate action among right-leaning audiences was more than double the gain among left-leaning ones (+10 vs. +4 points). This moved overall support on the right from 61% to a commanding 71%, demonstrating that the right language doesn't just persuade the middle; it actively bridges the partisan divide. Pro-climate messages, when framed correctly, prevailed over the strongest opposition arguments 57% of the time in head-to-head tests.

A Global Playbook with Local Dialects

While the core principles of effective communication are universal, the report underscores that the most potent messages are tailored to local contexts. The study provides a detailed breakdown for the G7 nations surveyed, revealing a nuanced map of public concern.

The United States, for instance, exhibited the widest partisan divide (a 39-point gap), yet even here, conservative audiences were meaningfully persuadable. The most effective message was not about innovation or jobs, but a direct appeal about the 'Impact of an Overheating Planet,' which produced a 9-point increase in support.

In stark contrast, France emerged as the least polarized country, with just a 5-point gap between left and right. The most powerful driver there was 'Health Risks,' which generated a massive 15-point jump in overall support and a staggering 21-point increase among left-leaning respondents.

Italy provided one of the study's biggest surprises. It was the only country where economic and anti-corporate frames outperformed all others. A message about 'Anti-Corporate Greed' produced a remarkable 20-point increase in support for cutting fossil fuel pollution among right-leaning Italians—the single highest response from any right-leaning group in the entire study.

Meanwhile, in the UK, 'Health Risks' and 'Protecting Nature' were the top persuaders. In Germany, a country with the lowest belief that climate change is solvable (45%), messages about the 'Impact of Overheating Planet' and 'Unfair Costs' resonated most strongly. And in Canada, the most successful message was an appeal to 'Protect What You Love for Future Generations,' which won a head-to-head competition against opposition messaging 62% of the time.

With plans to expand the research to 11 more countries, including major emerging economies like India, Brazil, and Nigeria, the initiative aims to build a truly global understanding of how to build the shared will for a more stable and prosperous future.