Resource Library

Many corporations and governments are advancing “net zero” climate plans that fail to provide real solutions to addressing climate change and cutting emissions. These plans allow polluting industries to escape responsibility to address climate change and shift the burden of climate action to frontline communities.

Movement organizations can make various decisions to find the right balance between breadth versus depth and unity versus autonomy. This report synthesizes hard fought lessons that organizers have learned in the face of complex challenges related to organizational structure. Movement organizations need to have the breadth—the capacity to organize the masses at scale. At the same time, movements need “cadres” with deep leadership capacity in order to be able to organize strategically in the face of constant uncertainty and local complexity. Organizing also requires unity—coordination to unify our power and resources such that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. On the other hand, people need autonomy in order to be able to take initiative, unleash their creativity, adapt to the particularities of their context and feel agency in the movement. Movements need to develop structures of leadership and clear authority that can manage the competing demands to create unity and enable autonomy. This report provides general lessons and some specific tips to find the right balance of breadth versus depth and unity versus autonomy.

This week’s Insight recaps our Research + Experimentation 9 convening last week, highlighting some of the top research and movement strategies from the field in the past year. We’ve also got a climate equity survey, upcoming trainings, and job listings.

Using frames and rhetoric that emphasize consumer responsibility, demand, and the uncertainty of climate risk, fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil downplay the seriousness of climate change. An analysis of ExxonMobil’s internal and external facing documents use different frames to talk about climate change. In advertisements, the company’s rhetoric acknowledges that climate change poses a risk, but the authors argue that the risk frame encourages uncertainty about the seriousness of human-caused climate change. Similarly, advertisements also use frames that put responsibility on individuals, indicating that individuals’ energy demand has been too high for companies to meet it with anything but fossil fuels. The company can use these frames and rhetoric to sidestep responsibility for their role in human-cause climate change.             

President Biden sped around in a new Ford F-150 Lightning earlier this week proclaiming, “This sucker’s quick!”
Of course, we’ve also seen a “quick” acceleration in the electric vehicle space over the past few months, with Biden calling for huge investments in EVs and charging infrastructure as part of the American Jobs Plan and numerous automakers announcing plans to phase out production of gas vehicles. The last time our team examined insights around transportation electrification*, the Trump administration was challenging California’s clean car standards. Today, that effort is dead and more than a dozen states have adopted the standards and are moving forward with policy implementation. Yay for progress!
However, even with momentum (and renewed concern about the price and availability of gas, with the recent Colonial Pipeline cyber-attack), fewer than 1% of U.S. cars are electric. Analysts project sales of gasoline-powered vehicles need to end by 2035 if we want a fully electric fleet by 2050, requiring a much more ambitious timeline than current policies dictate.
This week, we dig into insights from a slew of recent polling and messaging research that helps us understand how to structure campaigns that build the public and political will necessary for a just transition to clean cars – while also recognizing the importance of reducing vehicle miles traveled overall and ending our dependence on single-occupancy vehicles.