Social etiquette tiptoes around sex, religion and politics lest they provoke avoidable distress. If the same is now true of climate, what’s an activist to do?

This article examines how activists can learn to navigate the conversational consequences of human- induced climate change.

Times change, Taboos Shift

• I’m frank: you’re rude. 
• I’m inquisitive: you’re ‘difficult’. 
• I’m open-minded: you’re insensitive.

As social apes, we’re constantly navigating the gap between what any two people consider ‘normal’.

We’ve always needed rules to avoid conflict and lubricate our social interactions. Following the same rule-book could determine whether a stranger embraces you, or stabs you. 

As we became more verbal, the rules also managed the gamut of less binary outcomes.

Civilization has added many complexities since we were tiny dots occasionally bumping into each other on a vast plain, but our nature is unchanged. Human curiosity remains in constant tension with our instinct to socialise. 

The faster we discover new things and the more multifaceted our societies become, the thicker the rule-books become. 

New discoveries and greater diversity of thought make it ever harder for polite society to remain polite. Navigating complex conversational environments requires more rules to tread the tightrope preventing us from plunging into the stranger danger abyss.

• Know and avoid taboos, and our fellow apes will embrace us.
• Ignore or break them, and they might still stab us, literally or metaphorically

The Unholy Trinity of Social Etiquette

The Renaissance, colonialism, transport and technology opened vast new uncharted territory for post-industrial European bourgeois society to navigate. 

Galileo, the slave trade, urbanization, Darwin, all required new chapters and repeated revisions to the rule-books.

Rules of thumb emerged. Generations were raised to avoid raising the Unholy Trinity of Sex, Religion & Politics in polite society.

These guidelines remain prudent for anyone who prioritises smooth social interaction, unruffled feathers and a quiet life: 

• Sex: We may be more open about referencing sex acts than the Victorians, but conversational taboos are now adapted to avoid new gender controversies.
• Religion: we may be undergoing a ‘3-step secular transition’ globally, but this process is too slow and patchy for religion to lose its status as a conversational taboo.
• Politics: social media has increased our access to political content (‘doing our own research’) and politicised previously apolitical topics (like vaccines). On balance, politics are still best avoided in polite conversion. 

Before examining whether we should add Climate to turn the Unholy Trinity of Chat into a Fourth Horse of the Conversational Apocalypse, here’s a story about the limitations of following these conversational rule books.

A Conversational Cautionary Tale

A visiting researcher was invited to a formal dinner party for a charity funding his research. 

The event was Downton-Abbey-posh. Keeping a low profile to avoid talking to anyone at the pre-dinner drinks reception, uncomfortable in his rented dinner jacket, he examined the seating plan. To his horror, he realised he’d be spending the next couple of hours surrounded by aristocrats.

Anxious that his foreign status, youth, cultural differences, working class background and non-native English might embarrass him, he sought his professor’s advice as they shuffled into the dining hall.

‘Don’t fret’, explained his professor, a veteran of such events. ‘Just ask after your fellow-diners’ children, and discuss the weather. These are both safe topics which the British upper classes love discussing. No need to risk straying into any other topic’. 

The professor disappeared to his end of the table. The anxious young researcher seated himself at his appointed place between a Duchess and a Viscount, and opposite a Lord. 

As soup was served, he turned to the Duchess, took a deep breath, and said ‘It’s a pleasure to meet you. Do tell me, how are your children?’. 

As predicted by his Professor, the Duchess happily prattled on about her children, requiring no more of the researcher than polite attention between spoonfuls of soup. The researcher, initially fiercely concentrating on every word in case he had to respond appropriately, soon realised he only had to nod, smile and frown whenever she did. When the Duchess appeared to have exhausted the topic, and raised her eyebrows to cue his next conversational gambit, the researcher remembered his professor’s advice and asked ‘And what do you think about the weather we’re having?’. He breathed an internal sigh of relief as the Duchess revealed her thoughts on current precipitation, temperatures and barometer readings.

As the roast beef was served, the Duchess nodded politely and turned to engage her other neighbour in repartie. Hoping he might now be ignored, the researcher looked round to find the Viscount to his other side raising his wine glass and eyebrows in greeting. ‘It’s a pleasure to meet you’, said the researcher, mentally crossing fingers. ‘Do tell me, how are your children?’.

The researcher had no more need to say a word, or risk any faux-pas. Between bites of beef, the Viscount rambled on inconsequentially about his children. The researcher didn’t catch it all, but his experience with the Duchess had taught him it didn’t matter. When the Viscount finished his turn and did the anticipatory eyebrow raising, the researcher didn’t miss a beat, asking ‘And what do you think about the weather we’re having?’. The main course plates were removed without requiring the researcher to do anything more than mirror every nod, smile or frown.

As the bread-and-butter puddings were served and the Viscount, duty discharged, turned back to his other neighbour, the researcher found himself in eye contact with the Lord across from him, wine glass and eyebrows raised in expectation of the next round of polite conversation. No problem.

‘It’s a pleasure to meet you’ said the researcher, raising his glass to the Lord, ‘Do tell me, how are your children?’.

His Lordship duly obliged with a summary of his offspring’s life histories, achievements and ambitions. Bread-and-butter pudding half-consumed, the Lord politely inclined his head, returning the conversational ball to the researcher’s court. The researcher, now familiar with the rules, gently lobbed it back with ‘And what do you think about the weather we’re having?’.

Just as his Lordship appeared to have exhausted the topic, the dessert plates were cleared. The researcher breathed a sigh of relief. He was about to make his escape when, to his horror, brandy was served. He found himself once again looking at the Duchess,s brandy balloon and eyebrows raised in expectation of his next conversational gambit.

The professor’s ammunition was now exhausted. ‘Do tell me’, the researcher improvised, ‘what do your children think about the weather we’re having?’.

Risk/reward calculation of spicing up conversation

The researcher’s cautionary tale illustrates the downsides of strict adherence to etiquette rulebooks: bland, vapid interactions that serve no purpose other than avoiding any potential controversy.

Straying from the rulebook carries risks, but also provides a window of opportunity not to waste your time – or that of your equally-bored interlocutor- on boring, pointless, saccharine blah-blah.

• Is there a more serious consequence to the researcher’s everyday conversation risk-avoidance strategy than mutual boredom?

• What happens if you try seasoning your conversational porridge with a bit of spice?

• What happens if you attempt to manoeuvre a weather conversation into a climate debate?

Avoiding ‘difficult’ topics may well hinder a stranger from stabbing you.

But what if playing it safe, and not rocking the boat, enables all of us to stab each other, our children and our grandchildren?

Let’s examine the possible consequences of dropping the (Climate) C-Bomb, and raising the distasteful topic of human-induced climate change…

Premises

Do you agree with these premises? 

1. We all talk about the weather, especially when it’s extreme.
2. We’d rather not talk about human-induced climate change.
3. A will continue to get worse until we flip B.

Now substitute the word ‘weather’ with ‘extreme weather events’ and all other greenhouse effect climate outcomes long predicted by climate models, such as rising food prices and more climate refugees’.

Do you still agree with these premises?

If so, the more we normalise avoiding difficult or unpleasant conversations about our collective responsibility in driving such ‘weather’ events, the less likely we are to make any attempt to reverse or mitigate the disastrous impacts of our fossil fuel addiction.

In this light, ‘keeping it light’ when chatting about the weather is actually a trade-off. We’re balancing the short-term rewards of avoiding discomfort/getting stabbed, against the medium-term risk of being complicit in civilisational collapse. 

Sorry for being a party-pooper, but this is rather the point. 

Weather good, Climate bad?

Here’s a thought experiment, in the form of three things you could say next time you hear a ‘weather’ conversation. 

1 ‘CLIMATE CHANGE PROMPT

‘It’s climate change, isn’t it? They said this would happen’

This prompt directly converts the conversation from a ‘weather’ framing to a ‘climate’ framing. It uses the bluntest and most incendiary ‘C-Bomb’, ‘climate change’.

Identifying who ‘they’ are opens a second conversational T-junction from weather to climate, should your interlocutors choose to take it.

2 ‘FOSSIL FUEL’ PROMPT

‘It’s our fossil fuel addiction, isn’t it? They said this would happen’

This prompt moves causation one step back. It doesn’t assign blame to any particular tribe. Indeed, saying ‘our’ invites interlocutors to share blame among all humans.

3 ‘EL NIŇO PROMPT

‘It’s El Niňo, isn’t it? They said this would happen’

This prompt cites a climate pattern originating in the Southern Pacific that occurs every 2-7 years. It’s technically unrelated to human-induced climate change, but often cited in the media as a cause rather than an effect of rising temperatures. ‘El Niňo’ is thus both:

• Manipulated by climate misinformation peddlers as an exogenous ‘natural force’ to ‘blame’ for extreme weather, and hence a justification for climate inaction.
• Used by non-meteorologically-literate climate activists as a pseudoscientific proxy prop for explaining climate change, and hence a justification for climate action.

It therefore opens the door for Effective Activists, Ineffective Activists, Unwilling Inactivists and Willing Inactivists to engage with the new climate-pivotted topic of conversation.

Now imagine the impact of dropping these C-bomb prompts into everyday ‘weather’-framed conversations.

How would friends, family, colleagues and strangers with whom you have ‘weather’ chats several times a day, respond to your invitation to talk about climate instead?

Dropping a Climate Bomb: 5 Conversational Scenarios

Would your imagined responses fall into any category not covered by the following five options?

Note that A, B and C succeed in pivoting the conversation from a weather to a climate framing, while D and E fail.

A) CLIMATE SOLUTION

Typical ‘climate solution’ responses include:

• Yes, we should all recycle/stop flying/go vegan/buy EVs, shouldn’t we?
• Did they really say this was going to happen? Why didn’t we do anything?
• How are food prices related to El Niňo?
• If only the news mentioned climate change more, we might do something.

Keys:

• The next thing uttered after your prompt expresses a positive ‘climate solution’ or asks a question that follows your climate pivot.
• Your conversation partners actively acknowledge you’ve switched the topic from weather to climate

B) CLIMATE DESPAIR

Typical ‘climate despair’ responses include:

• We’re doomed, aren’t we?
• There’s no point in us doing anything when China/India/USA is doing xxx.
• It’s all the government’s fault, isn’t it?
• Billionaires rule the world now, nothing we can do will make any difference.

Keys:

• The prompt succeeds in switching the framing from weather to climate.
• The responses don’t contradict the prompt.
• The next comment expresses despair, Whataboutery, blaming others, or other negative emotions justifying inaction.

C) CLIMATE DENIAL

Typical ‘climate denial’ responses include:

• El Niňo actually proves climate change is natural and has nothing to do with human activity.
• Food prices are going up because of Iran. It’s unrelated to hot weather.
• Storms are actually becoming less frequent.
• It’s actually all to do with sunspots/volcanic activity/natural cycles.

Keys:

• The prompt succeeds in switching the framing from weather to climate.
• The next comment denies human causes to climate change, repeats climate denier talking points about ‘natural’ cycles, or expresses other non-despairing justifications for inaction.

D) IGNORED

Typical ‘Ignored’ responses include:

• They said on the news it’s now officially the hottest summer on record.
• I still think the summer of 1976 felt hotter.
• We don’t have a hosepipe ban yet, but we’re all expecting one next week.
• It’s just the supermarkets ripping us off.

Keys:

• Your prompt is heard but functionally ignored. 
• The conversation continues as it would have, had you said nothing. The next thing said is still weather-framed (i.e. another statement about the results of climate change rather than a climate-framed remark about underlying causes, whether positive, despairing or deying).

E) SUBJECT SWITCH

Typical responses would include:

• Is that the time? Better be going.
• Is anyone hungry? Shall we eat now?
• Did I tell you what my nephew said about his birthday present?

Keys:

• The surveyor’s prompt kills the weather conversation. 
• The next person to speak switches to new non-weather/climate related topics.

Be OPEN

Play through these scenarios in your head.

If you think this wouldn’t happen in real life, test it with this 4-step O.P.E.N. procedure:

1. Opportunity: Next time you chat about the weather with your neighbour, work colleague, bus driver or postal worker, recognise it as an opportunity.
2. Prompt: Pick one of the three prompts (if you like, try to predict which one of the five response categories you reckon will ensue).
3. Engage: Drop your selected C-Bomb
4. Note: note what happens.

Has this OPENed your mind to thinking about everyday chats about the weather in a different way?

Would you be curious to see an OPEN-source database, recording the responses of ordinary people in everyday situations? It would answer questions like:

• Would responses be the same in different countries (e.g. those threatened by rising sea levels and oil-exporters)?

• Would responses differ if the conversation was in an informal situation (e.g. a party) or a formal situation (e.g. a work meeting)

• Would responses differ if respondents knew the surveyor and their climate opinions (e.g. close friends and family) or not (e.g. someone you sit next to on a bus).

Don’t mention the (Climate) War!

Such a public database would be an invaluable storytelling resource for any climate activist. It would contain granular data, which would help fine-tune calls to action to improve their chances of moving particular audience types from climate inaction to effective climate action.

Which is why See Through Together (Goal: Speeding Up Carbon Drawdown by Helping the Inactive Become Active) has a project to create such an open-source database. 

The research project’s working title is Don’t Mention The (Climate) War!

Catchy names risk appearing methodologically unsound research. 

We hope this article proves the opposite. 

Actions, not words

If you want to participate in a real-world global version of this thought experiment, email: dmcw@seethroughtogether.org, subject line: How Can I Help?

Key roles:

• Methodology: data collection design and instructions to surveyors
• IT: back-end database design and delivery
• Web Design:  user interface and interactive functions
• Recruiting and training surveyors around the world
• Administration and internal comms
• External PR
• Surveyor

If you’d like to know other ways to support this project in particular, or the See Through ecosystem in general, as a Business or Individual, details here.