This blog was created based on a presentation given by two experts from Pennfuture at ReImagine Appalachia’s 2025 Virtual Strategy Summit.
This past January, ReImagine Appalachia held its Fifth Annual Virtual Strategy Summit. Here, thought leaders in policy, sustainable manufacturing, environmentalism, and labor convened to strategize how advocacy organizations and initiatives can continue their work in the new administration.
One of the big takeaways was that organizations will need to update messaging and communications strategies if they want to continue to put wins on the board. For example, in one of the presentations, the executive director of the American Sustainable Business Network, Camilla Taylor, discussed the concept of “green hushing”, a term that refers to toning down environmental rhetoric and instead amplifying the economic opportunities in renewable energy and sustainable investment. The aim being to quietly promote the benefits of green initiatives while muffling terms that are known to be viewed with hostility by new lawmakers.
Communications in a changing policy environment
However, advocates must adapt their messaging for audiences beyond lawmakers in 2025. In one of the breakout sessions from day two of the summit – “Communications in a Changing Policy Environment” PennFuture‘s Campaigns Director, Annie Regan, and Policy Manager for Sustainable Economics, Donna Kohut, discussed recent voter data from Pennsylvania that showed that while voters are concerned about the environment, messaging on sustainability has not been effective enough at rallying their support around clean energy investments.
This article explores the three advocacy messaging mistakes organizations made in 2024, and how we can fix them and reach bigger audiences in 2025.
Mistake #1: advocacy organizations failed to emphasize cost savings
The average voter wants to know that clean energy will save them money. According to a study released March 19, 2024 by the Commonwealth Foundation, significantly more voters in Pennsylvania are likely to back a political candidate’s energy policy if it prioritizes lowering energy costs than if it prioritizes protecting the environment.
This Pennsylvania study was conducted by the Commonwealth Foundation
The studies referenced in Annie and Donna’s breakout session were conducted by both conservative-and-progressive-leaning entities. The Commonwealth Foundation has conservative leanings, and given that Donald Trump won Pennsylvania in the 2024 presidential election by 50.4 percent to Kamala Harris’s 48.7 percent, these polls give us insight into what might have informed voters’ decisions.
The study suggests that a key issue with pro-environment messaging (which is primarily espoused by democrats) is that voters associate certain sustainability terms with high energy costs. Terms such as:
- energy-efficient alternative
- prioritize sustainability
- restrict energy production
According to the same study, concerns about high energy costs significantly surpassed fears about the loss of energy sector jobs. This is useful information for advocacy organizations that have historically touted job creation as the primary benefit of renewable investments.
This Pennsylvania study was conducted by the Commonwealth Foundation
Mistake #2: made the environment seem too abstract…
Many people’s reference point for “the environment” is their local parks and neighborhoods. They understand the need to care for environments, but the messaging must be adapted to meet their concerns. To maximize the impact of pro-sustainability messaging, Annie and Donna suggested advocates expand their notions of environmental allies. This does not mean de-prioritizing the protection of natural ecosystems, it means communicating the value of those spaces in ways that relate to broader audiences.
Example: Urban and suburban neighborhoods also benefit from environmental protection such as tree-planting and pollution control (both for flood mitigation and community building). Communicating through that lens helps translate the need to protect nature.
Mistake #3: They segmented audiences on party lines instead of unique interests
In order to maximize the impact of pro-sustainability messaging, it is not only important to expand notions of environmental allies, but to understand and speak to others’ values and priorities, and to be clear, concise, and accessible. Annie and Donna discussed the need to avoid painting audiences with an overly broad brush because, as covered in their session, certain terms and concepts are popular across party lines. Terms that sustainability proponents can leverage to broaden their audiences such as:
- energy incentives
- grid reliability
- cheap energy
- loss of energy jobs.
These terms could just as easily refer to coal and gas, but they speak to commonly held nonpartisan values, such as the ability to pay electric bills, find work, and receive financial assistance for your business.
Moreover, advocacy organizations must not only capitalize on how renewables can bring down energy prices, they must also adapt their messaging to the interests of specific groups.
- Residents want to lower energy prices to care for families and meet financial goals.
- Manufacturers want low energy prices to make a profit, grow their business, and meet demand.
- Legislators want to create jobs, reduce costs for constituents, and grow local economies.
The good news
Though the high costs of energy appears to be the top energy-related concern among voters, a significant majority do care about environmental issues and want federal funds to continue to flow to the EPA to address issues like pollution and air quality.
According to a study released November 19, 2024 by the Environmental Protection Network:
- 88% of all Pennsylvania voters including 81% of Trump voters want Congress to increase EPA funding.
- 80% of Pennsylvania voters including 72% of Trump voters support federal funding to communities disproportionately harmed by air and water pollution.
- 86% of Pennsylvania voters including 76% of Trump voters oppose attempts to weaken the EPA.
So, on its face, caring for the environment largely remains a nonpartisan priority for voters. The challenge advocates now face is accurately hitting all the pain points that resonate with the immediate needs of voters, their families, and their communities.