How You Can Make Sustainability Sexy

Why urgent messages on sustainability fail to resonate and how you can use marketing to get people to care

I know you haven’t yet read this post to decide whether you like it or not, but hit that 💖 button anyway, you’ll forget to do it later, and it really helps to spread the word.

---

I.

Climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, poor air quality, overfishing, food waste, AI anxiety, and on and on it goes. The world's going to hell in a handbasket, haven't you heard?

If you were living in Slovenia in 1924, you'd probably think the same.

Fresh off the chaos of World War I and the Austro-Hungarian Empire's breakup, you'd find yourself suddenly branded a "Yugoslavian," lumped in with Croats and Serbs—neighbors you don't even like. You'd probably be complaining about your tax dinars going to support veterans rather than being spent on education and health care. Sound familiar?

If you were American in 1924, you'd be annoyed about Prohibition and the ban on alcohol that came with it.

The Great Depression happened around the same time, the Russian Civil War, the Spanish Flu Pandemic, the rise of Fascism in Italy, the Chinese Civil War, I could go on...

The world has been going to shit for as long as we've had the words to say so. And while the specifics of our global gripes change, the feeling of impending doom does not.

Ironically, while this sense of overwhelm has intensified, it's not because the world has grown more dangerous, but because of technology.

Thanks to our smartphones and our current geopolitical dynamics, a disaster in a distant land feels like it's crashing through our own living room - I like to call this 'Anxiety by Proxy'. It’s a small world, especially when it feels like it's ending.

However, what makes 2024 different to 1924, different to 24 AD is that now we have access to more information than ever before, more rights than ever before, and more tools to potentially solve our problems—or create spectacular new ones.

Which begs the question, if we're supposedly that much smarter, richer and more informed, why is it so hard to convince people to take action? And more importantly, how can you motivate them to do so?

II.

Let's take Donald Trump's most recent avalanche of headlines as an example. I don't stay on top of US politics, but even I was made aware of Trump's guilty verdict within hours after it happened.

The headlines wrote:
"Trump conviction heralds a somber and volatile moment in American history" - CNN
"Trump Spews False Claims and Fury in Wake of Conviction" - The New York Times

and also…
“Trump: We're Dealing with a Corrupt Government,” Fox News
“INJUSTICE.” The New York Post

Same event, wildly different opinions. So what are you going to do about it?

Nothing.

Why? Because you probably already hold a well-formed opinion on the matter that is highly unlikely to change.

You're also likely only reading the articles that confirm your bias, and the sense of group identity you've formed with your peers is likely to help ease any contradictory beliefs you may hold.

If you're a Democrat you're probably thinking "Surely now they will see how corrupt Trump is and stop supporting him."

And if you're a Republican you're probably thinking "Now they'll finally see how corrupt the SYSTEM is and vote for Trump to change it."

Same event, wildly different conclusions.

When this news broke out, I was in Vietnam talking to my friends in Europe about stuff that's happening in the US - 'Anxiety by Proxy.'

In a world saturated with immediate and often polarizing information, like the deluge following a high-profile news event, this fact becomes more obvious than ever - the primary aim of most news is NOT to inspire the viewer to take action but to capture their attention.

News like this sucks all the oxygen out of the room. Every article seems to scream for your attention, and yet, none of them really expect you to do anything more than read and react, ideally over-react.

How can I be so sure?

Because, as a marketer, I know that news is not designed to persuade but to enrage and, occasionally, inform—three fundamentally different objectives.

The reason I've chosen to talk about news in this context is because I wanted to highlight this disconnect between how information is presented and how we are expected to interact with it.

When you think about topics surrounding sustainability, the news is most people's primary source of information. However, it often falls short of fostering genuine understanding or triggering any sort of personal commitment. Watching a 2-minute clip of a talking head informing us of yet another oil spill is rarely inspiring and persuasive.

According to the UN's World Food Program, it would cost $40 billion annually to directly address world hunger by 2030.

For context, Bezos is worth $196B - a lot of his money is tied in investments, of course, but that is beyond the point - world hunger is a solvable problem.

In fact, most of the problems facing humanity today are solvable problems. Especially the ones that can be financed by money: access to clean water, education, preventable diseases, mental health care etc. Money always makes for a sobering conversation, doesn't it?

We have the resources to fix all of these seemingly unfixable problems. And yet, why do urgent messages like sustainability fail to resonate as deeply as they should?

Why doesn’t climate change trigger our alarm bells like other global crises do?

Why do distant conflicts like those in Palestine and Ukraine stir immediate anxiety by proxy, while the pervasive threat of climate change barely registers on our emotional radar?

Please note, I'm not saying one is worse than the other, or that you should pick one over the other. As humans, we have the capacity to care about more than one thing at once.

Why do people who are generally good people drink Coke, thereby supporting the biggest plastic polluter in the world - Coca-Cola.

III.

Why isn't sustainability sexy?

There are several key reasons behind this. Understanding them can drastically transform how you communicate and incentivize change - if you're into that sort of thing. Let's first dig into the why, and then I'll teach you the how.

The Science of Perception

In his book, Stumbling on Happiness, Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert has outlined several reasons why certain dangers trigger an emotional and behavioral response while others do not.

1. Temporal Immediacy: We are more triggered by threats that appear to be immediate. Dangers that are perceived as distant in the future do not stimulate the same urgent emotional response.

2. Violates Moral Intuitions: Threats that clearly violate our moral intuitions or ethical standards are more likely to elicit a strong reaction. For example, rape triggers a more immediate response than something more abstract, like pollution.

3. Historical Precedent: Dangers that we have a historical context for or personal experience with tend to trigger us more. When we lack historical context, as with issues like climate change, it's harder to process the danger on an emotional level. For example, most nations have indeed gone through war, making it much easier to form opinions and trigger a motivation to respond.

4. Caused by Another Agent: We react more strongly to threats when they are caused by an identifiable agent, especially one with intent. When danger is diffuse, such as climate change, and cannot be traced to a specific malevolent actor, it’s less likely to evoke a strong reaction. Whereas Putin is an easy target to hate.

5. Instantaneous Manifestation: If the effects of a threat are immediate, such as a natural disaster, they are more likely to incite fear and prompt action. Slow-building threats like global warming or biodiversity loss do not trigger our alarms as effectively because their impacts accrue over time and aren’t immediately noticeable.

6. Statistical Victims versus Individual Stories: Gilbert points out that we are moved by individual, personalized stories of suffering rather than by statistical or abstract data. And I'm sure you've seen ads from NGOs like UNICEF that try really hard (too hard?) to get you to care by telling the story behind the people.

Large-scale environmental issues often involve statistics and predictions, which are less emotionally compelling than individual narratives. In the words of Joseph Stalin "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."

Now, you probably already noticed that all of the faulty perceptions I just listed are indeed powered by our biases. I've already written a whole post about biases that you can read here, so I'm not going to open that Pandora's box again.

Unfortunately, this petri dish of biases is amplified by the reward system we've built online. People are more likely to engage with content—through clicks, comments, and shares—that resonates with their existing beliefs or content that evokes strong emotional reactions - fear, anger, shock, excitement.

This is, for example, why the main climate-related pieces of news you see online are indeed the ones with an obvious bad-guy, an urgent consequence, and an obvious solution. Such as an oil spill caused by some gas company that we need to stop.

This selective engagement is not random; it is deeply intertwined with the algorithms that govern what content is presented to users. They are designed to prioritize content that is likely to generate interaction, thereby ensuring that posts that trigger significant engagement are more frequently and prominently displayed.

As a result, we find ourselves caught in a digital echo chamber: the more a post is liked, shared, or commented on, the further it travels, boosting some viewpoints to celebrity status while leaving others in the dust. This not only amplifies favored narratives but also pushes less popular perspectives to the sidelines, skewing our collective lens and fueling a divide that's more about popularity than it is about truth.

Now that the foreplay is done and you understand the why, let's dive into the how.

IV

How do you change someone's mind?

You might innocently assume that anyone armed with all the facts will surely come to agree with your viewpoint and see the world the same way you do. Interestingly, that's exactly what the other side thinks as well.

If you only remember one thing from this post, remember this - all persuasion is self-persuasion.

People are deeply influenced by discoveries they make on their own, and not discoveries that have been presented to them. It's not until they get that "I might be wrong” feeling a few times before their model of the world begins to accommodate.

The brain is constantly balancing between overriding old information and conserving what it already knows. The mind changes once it can no longer ignore the magnitude of contradictory information.

This is hard to measure in numbers but according to David McRaney in How Minds Change, 30% is the quantifiable level of doubt when we admit we are likely wrong and become compelled to update our beliefs, attitudes, and values.

“Until we know we are wrong, being wrong feels exactly like being right."

What this means is that the most effective way for you to encourage change is not by imposing new ideas but by guiding others to discover these insights by themselves.

Appeal to their values, and keep chipping at it, until there's enough contradictory information that they have no other choice but to change their mind.

Here are a few extra examples you can use depending on your situation:

When people initially doubt a persuasive message, sharing counterarguments alongside your main points can also be highly effective. Addressing opposing views before they're raised not only displays confidence in your own ideas, but it also builds credibility and shows respect for the intelligence of your audience.

If you're selling renewable energy solutions you could say: "Some may argue that the sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. This is true, but advances in energy storage technology have made it possible to store excess energy during peak production times."

Presenting your argument in a way that resonates with the audience's current mindset can also enhance its effectiveness. For instance, telling someone, "I know you enjoy driving but using public transport during rush hour can save you from the stress of traffic jams," is more compelling than merely stating, "You should use public transport to save the planet."

Framing messages as rhetorical questions can also be effective. "Wouldn't it be nice if we could all drive electric cars?" prompts people to think deeply and articulate reasons supporting this shift. In contrast, simply asking, "Do you support the use of electric cars to reduce emissions?" might only elicit a yes or no response, minimizing their engagement.

Willingness to change is also something you need to take into account. For example, if you're aiming to shift attitudes about something like smoking, starting off by bombarding people with reasons why cigarettes are harmful is counterproductive. Simply presenting the facts isn't likely to sway anyone's opinions, as evidenced by the fact that there are still millions of smokers out there. If there's no desire to process information carefully, then there's no incentive to reach accurate conclusions.

I could go on, but I won't - this is probably why Andrew Huberman's podcasts are 2 hours long. Hopefully, this was enough to get your wheels turning.

Now that you know how to change people's opinions, let's dive into the most important part of it all, the main reason you started reading this post...

V.

How do you convince someone to take action?

Even if you do manage to convince someone that plastic consumption is bad, that means nothing unless they've actually taken the necessary steps to change their behavior.

Being aware of a problem and choosing not to address it, is just as harmful as being unaware of the problem at all, or perhaps even worse.

Even though the intentions behind sustainability messaging are usually good, the approach often leans towards the doom-laden. While this isn't the most effective tactic, I can see why it's frequently used.

They see the car approaching and scream at you to get out of the way, thinking "If I could only scream just a little louder, they'll hear me and pay attention."

What the sustainability messenger doesn't understand is that, as far as the listener is concerned, they can't argue with a crying baby - typical doom and gloom messaging does not foster a conversation; they talk AT people instead of talking WITH them. And as we've learned, effective persuasion is a process that unfolds gradually over time.

When being confronted with news that is overwhelming or daunting people tend to switch off. This is known as the "ostrich effect" —a cognitive bias where they figuratively bury their heads in the sand, choosing to ignore distressing information.

This is compounded by defense mechanisms such as denial and projection, where the anxiety generated by the threat is redirected towards less threatening objects or issues.

So while the dire predictions about climate change are scientifically backed and intended to prompt urgent action, and the listener does believe you, the apocalyptic framing can make the problem seem too colossal to tackle, causing inaction instead of engagement.

And this is where most marketers and other professional persuaders get it wrong.

Any (good) marketer can tell that you can't sell a product with fear-mongering.

But you can grab attention with it.

So while the use of statistics and powerful imagery can get you a foot through the door, you have to know how to frame the problem in such a way that also motivates the listener to take action. Fear messaging only works when it's paired with efficacy: problem > agitate > solution.

In other words, you have to learn how to use...

Choice architecture

As behavioral economist Richard Thaler explains in his book Nudge, using a method known as "choice architecture" will subtly guide people toward desired behaviors without requiring them to process excessive information.

That sneaky small fee for plastic bags at your local grocery store is a great example of choice architecture in action. Instead of hammering customers with guilt trips about plastic waste, this clever tactic gently nudges them toward bringing their own reusable bags. Paying a few cents for a bag turns out to be just annoying enough to spark change, gradually making 'bring your own bag' the new normal.

Just remember that autonomy is also important, you want to present the user with two options: the obviously better choice A, or not-so-good choice B. Almost like you would with a child:

Choice A: "Would you like to try the carrot sticks or the cucumber slices with your dinner tonight?"

Choice B: "Or, you can choose not to have any veggies, but remember, no veggies means no dessert."

Choice A makes vegetables part of the decision-making process. The child feels in control and involved in the choice, which can make them more receptive to eating vegetables. Meanwhile, Choice B is less desirable because it comes with a clear drawback—no dessert.

You want to present choices in a certain way to guide behavior rather than consciously asking people to think about it.

Another example is the use of real-time energy usage displays in homes or businesses. These devices show immediate, ongoing feedback on energy consumption. By making energy use more visible and understandable, people are nudged to reduce consumption or adjust behaviors to save energy. For instance, if you see your energy usage spike while using an old appliance, you might be nudged to switch to a more energy-efficient model. You could couple this strategy with some good old-fashioned tribe psychology by showcasing how their consumption compares to that of their neighbors. This can create a social push towards reducing energy, as people often adjust their behaviors to align more closely with community norms.

Offer consumers clear, straightforward options like 'Would you prefer the energy-efficient model that saves $50 annually or the standard model?' By presenting choices this way, you engage people on their terms and within their everyday decision-making processes, making the sustainable choice feel more personal and immediate.

And finally, to effectively communicate the immediate impacts of global warming, it's important to help connect the dots between climate change and everyday experiences, such as the rising cost of groceries. Remember you need to lead them to their AHA moment, don't offer it on a platter.

By linking these two seemingly distant issues, you can help people understand that global warming is not just a future threat—it's a current reality affecting their wallets today. For example, consider explaining how extreme weather conditions, driven by global warming, disrupt agricultural production. You might say:

"Think about the last time you noticed that the price of tomatoes or bread had gone up at the grocery store. These price hikes are often linked to droughts or floods affecting crop yields around the world, which are becoming more frequent and severe due to climate change. As these extreme weather events continue to rise, so will the prices of your everyday essentials. This isn't just about future generations; it's about the cost of your next shopping trip."

There were 38 environmental protests staged in museums in 2022, but how many of them do you think led to tangible change? The protesters’ cause is serious, the threat is very real, and the message is important and urgent. But that's not how you get the public on your side, taking action.

I know that a lof marketers choose to work with NGOs and on social marketing campaigns because it makes them feel less icky about pushing products online. My hope with Human to Humans is to prove it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. We don’t have to be the bad guys.

If you’re working on a social marketing campaign I’d love to see it (and possibly offer some feedback.)

If you haven’t tapped that 💖 what are you waiting for?