At a time when climate politics in the United States and globally remain deeply polarized, Will Hackman, a climate advocate and political operative, argues that the climate movement needs a new language — one rooted less in doom, guilt and abstract planetary crisis, and more in people’s everyday lives, health, safety, costs and communities. In his new book, Radically Reframing Climate Change: A Guide to Saving Ourselves, he makes the case that climate advocates have too often spoken to those who already agree with them, while failing to reach people who may be cautious, doubtful or simply disconnected from the issue. The challenge, he says, is not only scientific or technological. It is political, cultural and communicative. In the United States, climate change remains politically polarized, with surveys showing that Republicans are less likely than Democrats to view it as an urgent threat, making climate messaging particularly challenging across ideological divides. Mongabay spoke with Hackman over video call about climate messaging, grassroots activism, fossil fuels, political polarization, and why he believes the climate movement must rebuild, creating a broader and more hopeful constituency. Mongabay: You write in your book that much of climate messaging has been framed around fear, guilt and apocalypse. Is that still the right way to talk about climate change? Will Hackman: I think the nature-based messages — polar bears, melting glaciers, “there is no planet B,” “save the planet,” “world on fire” — work for people who already care about climate change. But they do not…This article was originally published on Mongabay