9: Culture & entertainment – Climate Outreach

This chapter, released in January 2026, is an addition to the Britain Talks Climate & Nature research published in September 2025. It builds on findings detailed in our Insights Report and Communications Toolkit. 

Underpinning this report are the seven British segments produced by More in Common, based on people’s values, core beliefs and worldviews.

Cultural activities have the power to engage audiences with diverse values

• Around a third to a half of people across segments enjoy museums and galleries.
• Between 50% and 75% of people listen to music every day, and even more watch TV.
• Established Liberals, Incrementalist Left and Progressive Activists most likely to engage in multiple cultural activities.
• Established Liberals are the segment most likely to go to the theatre, Dissenting Disruptors least likely. 

We are a nation of TV lovers: 85% of us watch TV most days

In our focus groups participants told us they enjoy watching: 

• Reality TV to relax: “it’s just bubble gum for the brain” 
• Dramas/thrillers, to get sucked into a good story
• True crime, such as 24 Hours in Police Custody
• Comedies, to unwind after a hard day
• Sport, for the drama 
• Documentaries, to learn

Most people are not noticing climate-related content in culture. If they do it’s mainly on TV or in films

In focus groups, most felt they rarely saw any content on climate change outside of the news and weather. Where audiences are noticing it, it’s on TV. Specifically: 

• Clarkson’s Farm – the most frequently cited example
• Wildlife programmes and documentaries 
• Dystopian films, like The Day After Tomorrow and Don’t Look Up
• True life dramas, like Toxic Town

These programme types reflect the climate impacts people are most worried about; nature, human health and food and farming.

Most people are supportive of more climate change content within culture, as long as it is ‘done well’

Across all focus groups we heard consistent willingness and appetite for more climate content within culture, provided it’s done well and meets their respective tastes. Acknowledging this, communicators should continue to explore what it means to do this ‘well’.

Different segments have different preferences on how climate content should appear in culture, so exploring audience tastes further will be fruitful for engagement. It is not ‘are audiences interested in climate’ but ‘how are audiences interested in climate?’

For example, in our survey people were more supportive than not of more climate mentions within entertainment formats on TV, though a third (31%) are unsure either way.

Traditional Conservatives and Dissenting Disruptors are the most resistant to seeing more climate change content on TV entertainment shows, reflecting their relatively lower level of climate concern than other segments. This also came out in focus groups discussions. Participants from these segments told us they were open to seeing climate content in places they would expect to see it, like documentaries or gritty dramas. They were more resistant to seeing what they feared might be heavy and preachy content in entertainment shows, or places they go to relax.

People want solutions to climate change to be shown more often, with less onus put on individuals to solve the problem

Focus group participants had different views on the ways they want climate change to be explored within culture. But there was strong agreement on the need to feature people taking constructive action on climate, especially from those with the most power. While trust in government and businesses is low, participants across the board wanted to see more acknowledgement of their role.

However, most people don’t want these issues to be crow-barred into content

In focus groups we saw that some segments (Established Liberals, Incrementalist Left, Progressive Activists) wanted climate themes subtly integrated into entertaining content, while others (Dissenting Disruptors, Rooted Patriots, Sceptical Scrollers) wanted hard-hitting real life examples.

Sceptical Scrollers felt they would “glaze over” if content was included too subtly and if they felt it was “just a drama”. They preferred examples from real life and for content to be up-front and hard-hitting.

Whether subtly integrated, or hard-hitting, this doesn’t mean climate has to lead the content. Instead, more universally engaging topics such as people’s health or wildlife can be the focus, showing how they will be impacted by climate change and what action can be taken to prevent or prepare for our future.

Most people feel warmer to characters taking positive climate action

Audiences tend to feel positive towards fictional characters in film and TV who show concern over climate change. A majority of survey respondents (53%) said they would feel more positive towards a character in a TV show who mentioned being concerned about climate impacting the future for their children or grandchildren. Only 7% would feel less favourable. 

Audiences also feel favourable towards characters taking positive action in their lives. Almost half would feel more favourable to a character who put solar panels on their roof, with only 5% feeling less favourable. More ‘activist’ actions, such as attending a climate march or protest, are seen slightly less warmly, though still more favourably than not.

The least favourably received action we explored was a character ‘talking about climate change being a hoax’. 

If a character you like in a TV show did any of the following would it make you more or less favourable towards them…

Outside of fictional programming, audiences want to hear about climate change from people who are passionate, authentic and down to earth

People who are trusted to talk about climate change are: 

• Knowledgeable 
• Genuinely concerned
• Personally taking action 
• Associated with nature
• Personally impacted (e.g. farmers, people with health conditions)
• Dealing with the impacts of climate change (e.g. firefighters, health professionals)  
• Able to communicate in plain English

The most frequently cited examples brought up in focus groups were: 

• David Attenborough for making climate change impacts relatable and showing the impacts on nature
• Jeremy Clarkson for showcasing the impact of climate change on farmers
• Fergal Sharkey for his passionate conviction on cleaning up rivers
• ‘National treasures’ like Sir Trevor McDonald or David Jason, for their broad appeal

It is notable that most of the examples of climate messengers brought up in our focus group conversations were white British men. Greta Thunberg was mentioned in terms of her appeal to young people and Sir Trevor McDonald as a ‘National Treasure’. 

Where audiences struggle to trust what public figures have to say about climate change, it tends to be because they perceive a lack of authenticity and genuine commitment. Examples of this include celebrities who are not authentically connected to the issue, those who show little signs of leading by example, those who are ‘in it for the money’ and politicians.

Audiences expect cultural organisations to talk about sustainability even if they haven’t reached their own sustainability goals

All focus groups agreed that creative and cultural organisations such as broadcasters, art galleries, museums and theatres don’t need to be perfect themselves in order to explore sustainability in content. Participants understand that this is a journey, and that there are challenges around, for instance, the energy efficiency of buildings and that organisations may not be able to afford to make productions emission free.

Building trust through transparently showing what actions have been done to reduce polluting activities, and those which are planned, models how participants often feel about their own lifestyles.

Respond to the appetite for more climate messaging that’s ‘done well’

Audiences don’t want to be lectured, chastised or overwhelmed, but they do want to engage with sustainability through culture on a frequent and ongoing basis. There is increasing energy and effort to bring these issues to life creatively. Leaders and practitioners should feel confident that audiences want this, and should continue to explore what it means to do this ‘well’. 

Embrace different audiences’ preferences, but recognise that the desire for solutions is universal

We heard demand for more hard-hitting content from some audience segments. Others wanted to see these issues explored in less on-the-nose ways. What was shared was the desire to avoid ‘pure doom’ and to see constructive, systemic and tangible solutions that make life better for people and communities. Creatives should continue to seek out ways to frame climate action that emotionally connects to the audience’s values, finding new stories, angles and formats through which to rise to this challenge. 

Entertainers, storytellers and public figures who care about climate and nature should speak up – with care and consideration

Celebrities who insult or instruct audiences will be quickly dismissed. Those with genuine passion and empathy will be well received. High-profile figures who want to explore these issues publicly can find common ground with audiences by reflecting a desire for solutions, along with a willingness to learn and show genuine commitment. Audiences don’t want to see perfect, holier-than-thou celebrity activists, they want to see these issues explored thoughtfully by the figures they know and trust.

Cultural organisations and creative people can be leaders on climate engagement

Audiences want and expect climate to be talked about in what they watch, visit and enjoy. Being a good climate leader is about telling bold and engaging climate stories whilst being transparent on the practical challenges of the transition we all face. Large cultural institutions and creative individuals alike shouldn’t compromise on how climate content is explored, just because they don’t feel they are perfect themselves.