The structure of attention: Building climate communications that actually stick

This article is the second part of a three-piece series. Here is part 1

Previously in this series

Article 1: Why climate messaging fails — I spent five years learning my friend Kim's neurodivergent brain works differently. It showed me where ALL our communications fail.

This article: Specific structural recommendations for talking TO people instead of AT them.

Next article: How to use AI to test whether you're talking AT or TO people.

Structure enables talking TO people

In business, we're fanatics about structure. 

Financial statements have prescribed formats. Board decks follow predictable sequences.

We understand that structure enables function.

So why do we seem to abandon structure the moment we try to communicate about climate? 

That's what I kept wondering after my conversation with Kim revealed that I'd spent two years talking AT her instead of TO her.

In the last article, I shared how it took me five years to realize my friend Kim's ADHD and dyslexia weren't problems to work around. 

Instead, they were diagnostic tools that showed me where my communication failed everyone.

I wanted to go deeper now. What exactly do you need from messaging and communications to actually engage with them?

Her answers were striking in their simplicity. 

Every single recommendation makes talking TO people more effective than talking AT them.

The five-minute rule: Listen more than you talk

"My philosophy when listening to investment pitches," Kim told me, "is that you need to talk for five minutes and then open questions for ten, fifteen, twenty minutes, whatever you've been given."

Five minutes of substance. Then discussion.

"By the time you've gone through those five minutes, I've got 500 questions in my head. I want time to ask those, please. And you have no idea what they are."

Think about the last climate presentation you attended. 

How long did the presenter talk AT the audience before inviting dialogue?

I've watched countless presentations lose their audience in the first fifteen minutes. 

That is NOT effective. Neurotypical or not. 

Yet. It. Is. So. Damn. Common.

Talking AT people for an hour doesn't create change. 

Talking WITH them for five minutes, then listening for fifty-five, might.

Lead with emotion, save facts for later

"If you're just going to give me facts, I can skim those later," Kim said. "I need to know you. I want to get to know you, your company, why you started it, and where it's going."

I asked her directly: "Lead with emotion. Save the facts for later?"

"Yes."

This contradicts what I've seen as the conventional approach to climate communications. 

We lead with data. Carbon concentrations. Temperature increases. Sea level projections. We think numbers create urgency.

But numbers don't create a connection. 

And without connection, you're talking AT people, not TO them.

Here's what I've learned from sitting in those boardrooms: 

People make decisions based on emotion and justify them with facts. I've seen this pattern hundreds of times.

The climate movement knows this intellectually. Yet our communications still lead with statistics and save the human stories for later. If we include them at all.

What if we flipped it? 

What if we started by talking TO people about what they care about, THEN gave them data to support the emotional connection?

The structural essentials that enable talking TO people

When I asked Kim what specific structures help her engage with content, she gave me a clear list:

1. Headings and subheadings everywhere

"That tells me there's something to learn. It tells the squirrels in my brain there's more to learn, and there's a logical progression."

2. Generous white space

"White space means there's room for the eyes to follow, and there's room for the ideas to form."

3. Say what it's about immediately

"Structure something so that I know exactly what you're talking about right away. Not because I can't understand it. Because I won't bother."

4. Multiple formats

"My favourite way is video with captions underneath. Give me a text readout afterwards. Then I can link everything back."

5. Interactive elements

"Make it a discussion. Make it a learning experience. Then my brain will say, 'I can't just gloss over this.' I have to pay attention."

Every single one of these shifts communication from talking AT to talking TO.

Substance without repetition (AND keep your personality)

"If I'm actually going to read it, it's because there's substance in every paragraph," Kim told me. "But it doesn't mean take out your personality. Your personality tells me how to read those words."

This distinction matters. 

When we talk AT people, we often repeat the same point three different ways because we don't trust they got it. We add fluff.

When we talk TO people, we trust them. We give substance without repetition. However, we maintain our authentic voice because that's what fosters connection.

What I think the climate community needs is to distinguish between unnecessary repetition (talking AT people) and authentic voice, which is essential for talking TO people.

The power of saying things positively

Kim taught me the neurological impact of the word "no."

"Using the word 'no' does something in a person's brain. It shuts things down immediately."

From childhood, "no" is associated with stopped actions, reprimands, and boundaries. 

Your brain registers it as negative before you consciously process the whole sentence.

"I always advise people just to say things in a positive way," Kim explained. 

Instead of "No, I don't agree with that," try "I think I see some of that differently. There might be some other ways to look at that."

This hit hard for me. 

I've built my platform on calling out lies, questioning premises, and pushing back against them. How do I do that without saying "no"?

Kim's answer: "It's just a reminder that there are better ways to say things that open up discussions rather than shut them down."

This is the difference between talking AT people (No, you're wrong) and talking TO them (Here's what I've seen; what have you experienced?).

What if we reframed responses to climate skepticism? 

Instead of "No, that's not how it works," what if we said, "Here's what the data actually shows," or "I've seen this play out differently in my experience"?

The substance doesn't change. But we shift from talking AT to talking TO.

Making it interactive (yes, really)

"You're competing with all the squirrels, and all the tracks that are running in my head," Kim told me. "Running multiple scenarios is fun. And now, with the fun element, you get the full attention of all those squirrels."

Kim then went on to describe cybersecurity tabletop games. Scenarios where teams work through multiple response options.

What if climate communications worked the same way? 

Instead of presenting a single solution pathway and talking AT people about why it's right, what if we invited audiences to explore multiple scenarios?

Because here's what I've come to see. These aren't accommodations. 

They're engagement strategies that work when you're talking TO people instead of AT them.

What actually motivates people to take action

I asked Kim directly: If I want you to read something, join something, give money, volunteer, change habits, what spurs you to take action?

Her answer was crystal clear:

"To motivate me, I need you to make a connection. The first thing I need is a connection through storytelling or other experiences."

Then: "Be honest about your intentions. If you're looking for money, if you're looking for volunteers, if it's just information, be honest."

Finally: "Have a very clear call to action. What is it you want from me? Exactly? How do you want it done?"

Three steps:

1. Make a personal connection
2. Be honest about intentions
3. One clear call to action

This is what talking TO people looks like. 

So much more effective than a data dump, a vague ask, and hope they figure out what you want, isn't it?

The experiment: Test if you're talking AT or TO

Here's what I'm asking you to do. 

Take something you've created recently that you're proud of.

Go to your favourite AI program. 

Use this exact prompt:

"I'd like to do an experiment. Take this piece of content and tweak it so that it is engaging for a neurodivergent person with ADHD and dyslexia. Then summarize where the differences are and why."

Study the results.

I promise you. You'll be blown away. 

The AI will show you where you were talking AT instead of TO. It'll highlight everywhere you assumed rather than explained. And it will show you everywhere you buried the lead or skipped the framework.

This isn't about dumbing down your content. 

It's about elevating it. And making it actually reach the humans you're trying to reach.

The structural shifts you can implement today

Here are the changes you can make to instantly shift from talking AT to talking TO:

• Add headings and subheadings liberally
• Double your white space
• Lead with personal connection — story first, data second
• State your intention clearly upfront
• One clear call to action (not three)
• Provide handouts or supporting materials
• Build in discussion time (talk for five minutes, listen for twenty)
• Frame positively rather than negatively
• Make it interactive — invite scenarios and questions
• Offer multiple formats

None of these requires a budget of any size, a dedicated department to make it happen, or a significant change to your existing processes.

What I'm learning from this

I thought three decades in C-suites taught me to communicate efficiently. 

Boardroom presentations. Investor pitches. Strategic plans. All optimized for talking AT people who process information like me.

Kim's perspective revealed what that efficiency costs us: we lose everyone whose brain doesn't match the template.

The sustainability movement can't afford that cost. 

We need everyone engaged. We need messages that stick. We need to talk TO people, not AT them.

The systems we're living with are broken. That brokenness has left us in a world that no longer serves the majority of us.

We're living with the unintended consequences of actions we collectively took over the last century. 

Had we known the destructiveness, we'd ask for a do-over.

But do-overs are a fantasy.

The only thing we can do is a do better. 

And that do better must be in the highest good for all.

Starting with how we communicate. Starting with talking TO people instead of AT them.

In my next post, I'll show you how AI can help you test whether you're talking AT or TO people. Before you hit publish.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Sustainability needs facts, not just promises. illuminem’s Data Hub™ gives you transparent emissions data, corporate climate targets, and performance benchmarks for thousands of companies worldwide.