Five supporters for every opponent, yet the language we use keeps people silent.
Two-thirds of global population supports immediate climate action with 5+ supporters per opponent, yet 'net zero' ranks last in priority across all countries tested. Messages framing climate through health risks, pollution reduction, and energy independence boost support 9-21 points; bans and mandates consistently underperform across ideologies.
- 83,971 adults surveyed across US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada from September-December 2025
- Two-thirds of global population supports immediate government climate action; 5 supporters per opponent
- "Net zero" ranked last among nine environmental priorities in every country tested
- Health risk messaging boosted support 9-21 points; bans and mandates consistently underperformed
- World Bank projects 14.5-15.6 million additional climate-related deaths in low/middle-income countries by 2050 if current trajectory continues
A Rockefeller Foundation-commissioned study of 83,971 adults across six democracies finds strong cross-ideological support for climate action, but messaging significantly impacts persuasion. Health, pollution, and household costs resonate far better than technical terms like 'net zero.'
Across six wealthy democracies representing more than 40 percent of global economic output, something unexpected is happening: people want climate action. A sweeping study of nearly 84,000 adults in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Canada—conducted between September and December 2025—found that roughly two-thirds of respondents support immediate government action on climate change. The ratio is stark: five supporters for every opponent. Yet this broad consensus masks a fragile truth. The language used to describe climate solutions matters enormously, and the words that dominate elite climate discourse are often the ones that fail most spectacularly with ordinary people.
The research, commissioned by The Rockefeller Foundation and released by the Potential Energy Coalition, tested eleven different ways of framing climate action. The results were unambiguous. Messages emphasizing health consequences—respiratory illness, disease from fossil fuel pollution—moved support by 9 to 21 percentage points depending on the country. Frames highlighting the unfair burden ordinary households bear through rising energy bills and insurance premiums also performed strongly. But the term "net zero," which has become the lingua franca of climate policy and corporate sustainability commitments, ranked dead last among nine environmental priorities in every single country tested. So did messages about "green jobs" and economic growth. The strongest persuaders were the simplest: pollution can be reduced. Clean energy brings independence from volatile global markets. Climate action protects what families love.
This finding arrives at a moment when institutions are retreating from climate language altogether. A phenomenon researchers call "climate hushing" has accelerated sharply. Across 31 markets worldwide, the share of consumers encountering sustainability messaging dropped from 49 percent in 2023 to 36 percent in 2025. Trust in those messages fell from 79 percent to 65 percent. Global news coverage of climate change declined 38 percent from its 2021 peak by the end of 2025. Corporate earnings calls barely mention climate or environmental, social, and governance issues anymore—mentions have fallen roughly three-quarters in that same window. The conventional wisdom among leaders has shifted: talk about climate and you lose. Stay quiet, focus on clean energy as an economic opportunity, and you win.
The data says otherwise. When researchers pitted pro-climate messages directly against the strongest anti-climate argument—"climate limitations mean families pay higher bills"—the pro-climate side prevailed 57 percent of the time across all six countries. The gains were largest among conservative audiences, the very group often assumed to be unmovable. In France, a message about health risks produced a 21-point surge in support among left-leaning respondents, the single largest ideological shift in the entire study. In Italy, where right-leaning voters already supported climate action at 74 percent—higher than the American average—an anti-corporate framing pushed support up another 20 points. Even in the United States, where the partisan divide on climate spans 39 points, conservative audiences showed statistically significant movement on nearly every message tested.
The study identified three principles that consistently worked. First, lead with everyday consequences: extreme weather, rising household costs, the tangible impacts people experience in their own lives. This single approach proved most effective at making climate feel personally relevant and urgent. Second, make the cause concrete. Calling climate change "pollution we can reduce" made the problem feel 10 to 20 percent more solvable while reducing polarization. Third, frame clean energy as additive, not restrictive. Messages emphasizing what clean energy delivers—local availability, affordability, independence from foreign energy markets—outperformed messages about bans and mandates by a wide margin.
The stakes underlying this research are severe. The World Bank projects that 14.5 to 15.6 million additional people could die in low- and middle-income countries from climate-related causes by 2050 if current trends continue. Extreme heat already kills roughly one person every minute globally. Workers worldwide lost 640 billion hours of potential work last year—nearly double the typical figure from the 1990s. Yet the public's willingness to support solutions remains largely untapped, not because people lack concern but because the conversation has either gone silent or adopted language that alienates rather than persuades.
Country by country, the patterns shifted subtly. In the United Kingdom, right-leaning adults supported climate action at 77 percent, 23 points higher than their American counterparts. France emerged as the least polarized nation in the study, with only a 5-point gap between left and right. Germany showed the deepest skepticism about solvability—just 45 percent of Germans believed climate change could be solved—yet messages about health risks and the unfair costs borne by households moved even German centrists substantially. Canada's right-leaning voters responded strongly to messages about protecting future generations, achieving the highest single-message win rate of any country at 62 percent. The United States, despite its 39-point partisan divide, remained persuadable: messages about the physical consequences of a warming planet moved conservative opinion by 9 points.
The Rockefeller Foundation plans to expand this research to eleven additional countries—Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, and Turkey—in coming months. What emerges from the current data is a clear directive for leaders: the public has not abandoned climate action. It has abandoned the language used to describe it. The path forward requires speaking to what people actually care about—their health, their children's security, their ability to afford energy, their freedom from pollution—rather than the technical metrics of decarbonization. The research suggests that silence on climate is not strategic. It is a missed opportunity.
Citações Notáveis
Climate is a winning issue when communicated effectively. Climate hushing is short-sighted and ineffective.— John Marshall, Executive Chair, Potential Energy Coalition
The public responds far more strongly to messages about family, health, pollution, and energy security than to narrow, technical terms like 'net zero' or 'decarbonization.'— Patrick Ruffini, Founding Partner, Echelon Insights
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does "net zero" fail so badly when it's become the standard language in boardrooms and policy circles?
Because it's abstract and distant. Most people don't think in terms of net zero. They think about their energy bill, whether their kids have asthma, whether the air smells clean. "Net zero" sounds like something that happens to the economy, not to them. It's technical jargon that signals you're talking to other experts, not to the person sitting at the kitchen table.
But doesn't the public understand that climate change is a big systemic problem requiring systemic solutions?
They do understand it's big. But understanding something intellectually and feeling motivated to support action are different things. The research shows that when you connect climate to concrete harms—respiratory disease, rising insurance premiums, energy independence—support jumps 9 to 21 points. When you talk about net zero, nothing happens. People need to feel it matters to their lives right now.
The study found that conservative audiences are actually persuadable. Why do so many leaders assume they're not?
Because the loudest voices on both sides have made climate into a tribal identity marker. But the data shows that when you strip away the ideology and talk about pollution, health, and fairness—ordinary households bearing unfair costs—conservative voters move. In Italy, an anti-corporate message moved right-leaning support up 20 points. That's not ideology. That's people responding to something that feels true and relevant to them.
What does "climate hushing" actually cost us?
It costs momentum. The public is ready. Two-thirds support immediate action. Five supporters for every opponent. But if leaders go quiet, if companies stop talking about it, if news outlets cover it less, the conversation dies. And when the conversation dies, the persuadable middle—the people who aren't ideologically locked in—drift. They stop thinking about it. They stop supporting it. Silence isn't neutral. It's a choice with consequences.
If health messaging works so well, why isn't it the dominant frame already?
Because health feels less like progress. It feels like defending against harm rather than building something new. But the data is clear: people respond to it. A message about fossil fuels making us sick moved support more than messages about innovation or jobs. Maybe leaders need to reframe what progress looks like—not just building new things, but protecting what we have.