Rising Flames: A Call for Bold Action Against Climate Change
What messages drive agreement about government action on climate change?
California Governor Gavin Newsom described the devastating 2025 LA County wildfires as potentially the worst financially impactful wildfire in US history. According to AccuWeather, the estimated losses range from $250 to $275 billion. This is in addition to the devastating loss of life, loss of property, and the unknown health effects on over a million nearby residents, as toxins and ash filled the air for days.
Yet amidst this fiscal and public health disaster, the latest in a series of weather-related catastrophes driven by climate change, President Donald Trump decided to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement—again. Leaving the agreement, designed to limit global greenhouse emissions to try and curtail the worst effects of climate change, happened mere hours after being sworn in.
Fortunately, Advocacy and Environmental groups expected this legislation and are already working to combat this and other recently rolled-back environmental regulations.
Here at Grow Progress, we wanted to know what messaging is most effective at persuading people that climate change is a serious threat that exacerbates extreme weather events and requires bold action from our government, even if it comes at a personal financial cost.
To do this, we used our Persuasion Sandbox tool to brainstorm messages similar to those used by the outgoing Biden administration, activists, and advocacy groups. We then tested each message.
How We Tested
Using the Grow Progress Persuasion Sandbox tool, we devised four distinct messages based on topics we often see used when discussing climate change. Each message focused on a different emotional hook: a personal story of loss due to wildfires, harm to communities from wildfires, a general overview of how extreme weather is becoming worse and more common, and the benefits of creating green jobs.
The messages were tested using the Grow Progress Rapid Message Test tool, which uses randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—the premier standard in message testing modeled on medical trials.
First, we recruited an audience of over 3,500 US adults and randomly split them into five groups. Each group viewed one message (one of our four messages or a placebo message) and answered the same three questions. In less than 24 hours, we had the following results.
The Toplines
Two-thirds of respondents in the placebo group already agree that climate change is a threat and that it is intensifying extreme weather events. However, only half of those respondents support the government taking action, even if that means raising their taxes.
Our two messages linking the wildfires to climate change produced the strongest results. Although climate activists and politicians often promote climate action as a boon to job creation, our test results show that green job creation messaging does not change attitudes toward supporting government climate action or investments.
Key Takeaways on the four messages we tested and how they affected agreement that extreme weather events are worsened due to climate change, that climate change is a danger to Americans, and that the government needs to take bold action even if that requires raising taxes.
The “personal story of loss” and “the harm to communities” messages successfully persuaded people that climate change requires government action (our main persuasion target based on the lower baseline). These same messages, along with a more general message about how extreme weather continues to get worse due to climate change, also helped people understand that climate change is a significant threat.
Subgroup Results
Government Action
Our Subgroup analysis focused on the success question with the lowest baseline levels of agreement: supporting government action on climate change, even if it means increasing taxes. Focusing on the area with the lowest initial agreement helps us better understand whether specific subgroups of people are more persuaded than others. Our analysis revealed that our messages influenced different subgroups to varying degrees.
None of our messages swayed women, individuals over 55, or those earning more than $50,000 annually.
However, the “personal story of loss” and “the harm to communities” messages may have persuaded men and individuals younger than 55 toward agreeing that the government should take action, even if that means temporarily increasing taxes. Additionally, we observed larger effects of persuasion among those earning less than $50,000 annually, a group with a particularly low baseline level of support at 42%.
Political Subgroups
In the first question, “Do you agree that climate change poses a serious danger to Americans,” Democrats and Liberals had the highest baseline percentages at 88% and 82%, respectively. However, some persuasion was still achieved, which is especially impressive when agreement is already high.
Moderates had a baseline of 63% and were persuaded by messages about wildfires and climate change, and potentially by the green jobs message, but we’re less confident in that result. Independents had a similar baseline of 62% and were potentially persuaded by the “personal loss due to a fire” message.
The most persuasive message for conservatives was a “personal loss due to a fire.” Starting with a support level of 45%, we measured an increase of 15 percentage points. Similarly, Republicans started with a baseline of 46% and saw an increase of 13 percentage points.
For the second question, “To what extent do you agree the government should take action (such as investing heavily in solar and wind energy) even if that means temporarily increasing my taxes,” Conservatives and Republicans had the lowest baselines, at 31% and 35%, respectively. Independents and Moderates were slightly higher, at 41% and 48%, while Liberals and Democrats had the highest, at 78% and 72%.
Once more, the two wildfire messages were the most persuasive across political segments, causing a directional lift amongst the already high baselines for Liberals and Democrats. The “personal story of loss” message performed even better among Independents and Conservatives. ”Green jobs” and “Extreme Weather” saw no measurable effect across the groups.
The only political ideologies or party identity subgroups influenced by the third question, “Do you agree that extreme weather events such as wildfires are intensified by climate change?” were Conservatives and Republicans. Again, the personal story about the wildfires swayed these two groups. These groups also had more significant potential for growth on this question, as they had the lowest starting baselines: 45% for Conservatives and 48% for Republicans.
Conclusion
The two messages about fires affecting communities and warning of personal loss persuaded people that climate change necessitates government action, which was our main persuasion target. Furthermore, these messages were even more successful in helping a larger group of people understand the significant threat of climate change. This success underscores the potential for change and should inspire optimism that we can agree on climate change across political spectrums when the right messaging is used.
These findings also show how personal narratives can be used to great persuasive effect for climate change and disasters. Future testing should include a variety of personal stories and messages aimed at convincing people that climate change poses a serious threat and that the government needs to make real investments to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.
Ready to find the messaging that resonates with your audiences? Learn more about Grow Progress’ Rapid Message Testing, and be sure to sign up for our newsletter and never miss a beat.
