Share
How to communicate with impact across many audiences is a frequent topic of dialogue and practice for our Connecting Genetics to Climate team and the many folks with whom we get to interact. After all, our work straddles two topics with long histories of communication struggles.
At a recent event hosted by Harvard Alumni for Climate and the Environment (HACE) in collaboration with the Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability at Harvard, former Costa Rican President Carlos Alvarado spoke to communication challenges in the context of science-informed national and international policy. We appreciated the humble acknowledgement of what he learned from two cases in Costa Rica: 1) the first national decarbonization plan in the world in 2019, and 2) the COVID response in Costa Rica where >80% of the population was vaccinated within a short time period after vaccinations were received. It would be easy to claim these two cases as resounding policy successes. At the same time, there’s always something to learn and do differently next time and Mr. Alvarado generously exemplified that reflective practice and the humility it requires. In both of the cases, Mr. Alvarado contends that the naming/framing of the policy issues and technical approaches created unnecessary tensions and divisions, in part by not foregrounding shared values for care and quality of human and other life.
So if we weren’t going to name a policy “National Decarbonization Plan” what are our ideas for language that emphasizes the ‘why’ (care for the quality of human and other life) without obscuring the ‘how’ (technical approach/focus)? What are your ideas? Alvarado suggests “National Plan for Livelihoods’ Improvement.” What’s your response?
Check-out the conversation and let us know what it sparks for you in the comments below. Do you have your own examples of communication gone right or wrong that we can all learn from? Please share!
