Climate, Extremism, and Communication

Admin
2 days ago
5 min read

Welcome to GDG Inspire’s newsletter, The StratComm Insights!

In this Insight Edition, we analyse how crisis communication, or the lack of it, has shaped responses to climate-related disasters.

The Importance of Crisis Communication

Crisis communication has never been more crucial. As extreme weather events increase in frequency and intensity, the ability to inform, warn and guide populations in real time is no longer a secondary concern, but a matter of survival. Yet, despite advances in technology and policy, failures in crisis communication continue to cost lives.

Why Crisis Communication is More Critical Than Ever

The UN reports that climate-related disasters have nearly doubled in the past two decades, triggered by rising global temperatures and changing weather patterns.

However, the role of crisis communication is often overlooked in disaster preparedness. Governments invest in infrastructure resilience, emergency response teams and recovery efforts, but too often, communication is treated as an afterthought. When disaster strikes, delayed or unclear messaging leads to unnecessary chaos, loss of life and destruction.

At its core, crisis communication is about preparedness, trust and adaptation. Information must be delivered before disasters take place, allowing communities to take preventive action rather than being caught in the chaos of an unfolding crises. Effective communication strategies safeguard that warnings are clear, accessible and issued with enough time. Crisis communication must function as an anticipatory mechanism, that integrates risk education into everyday public discourse so that preparedness becomes second nature.

To be truly effective, crisis communication must be a continuous process, reinforced through public awareness campaigns, drills and education initiatives. A strong crisis communication strategy is rooted in the social fabric, reaching individuals through multiple platforms, languages and formats.

The Valencia Floods

The Valencia floods of October 2024 serve as a reminder of the devastating consequences of failed crisis communication. Caused by DANA, an extreme weather event, the floods led to massive destruction, with at least 220 people dead, thousands missing, and severe economic repercussions. Yet, this was not an unpredictable catastrophe. Meteorologists had accurately predicted the severe rainfall, but these warnings did not translate into timely action. Official alerts were only issued when the floodwaters were already rising, leaving residents largely unprepared.

As the rain intensified, many residents went about their day unaware of the danger. Businesses reopened at 5 PM, just as the flooding reached its peak, catching many people in transit. Shops, schools, and workplaces had remained open, exposing thousands to imminent danger. Many fatalities were vehicle-related, as people mistakenly assumed driving offered a safe escape. Better public education on flood safety, such as the importance of staying indoors and avoiding vehicles, could have likely prevented many of these deaths.

The disaster also exposed failures in public awareness and preparedness. The regional ES-Alert emergency system was activated after eight hours of the first floods reported, a delay that costed lives. The messages were sent only in Spanish and Valenciano, leaving non-native speakers without critical information.

Moreover, no alternative communication methods were used for residents without mobile phones. Some attribute the responsibility of this lack of coordination to the dismantlement of the regional emergency unit.

Similar weather patterns occur annually in the region. This crisis was and is not an isolated event, which shows the critical importance of establishing a comprehensive preparedness strategy, which is periodically tested.

The Need for Systemic Change

The Valencia floods are not an isolated case. From the 2021 Germany floods, where sirens failed to warn communities of incoming disaster, to the 2023 Hawaii wildfires, where evacuation orders were inconsistently communicated, delayed or inadequate communication has consistently made disasters worse. As climate-related catastrophes become more frequent, the urgency to get crisis communication right grows exponentially.

Disaster management strategies must incorporate communication as a central pillar. The 2025 European Commission report on crisis preparedness highlights the need for a whole-of-society approach, where governments, private sectors and communities work together to build resilience. Recommendations include:

A unified, cross-border alert system to enhance preparedness for large-scale disasters.
Investment in communication infrastructure to handle real-time crises.
Behavioural science integration, placing an emphasis on actionable, clear messaging rather than abstract risk percentages.

EU Preparedness Strategy

This broader cultural shift is now being echoed at the policy level. The European Commission and the High Representative launched the EU Preparedness Union Strategy, a comprehensive plan designed to strengthen Europe’s capacity to prevent, anticipate and respond to emerging threats, from natural disasters to hybrid and cyberattacks.

This new Strategy offers a direct response to the growing severity of climate-related disasters, the rising expectations of crisis communication and the clear need for systemic reform. It puts forward 30 concrete actions, including the creation of an EU Crisis Hub, stronger civil-military coordination, proposals to improve early warning systems and a cross-border public-private Preparedness Taskforce.

Importantly, it calls for a “preparedness by design” culture, integrating resilience across all EU policies. Recognising communication as a pillar of resilience, the strategy emphasises the relevance of accessible public alerts, citizen involvement in decision-making and campaigns that promote preparedness as culture.

The strategy acknowledges what many disasters have already made clear: that resilience is not just about physical infrastructure or emergency services; it also depends on communication, coordination and trust.

Public reception to these efforts, however, reveals a deep distrust in the institutions. We analysed over 150 social media comments across Instagram, Facebook, Tiktok and Youtube, responding to recent EC video Preparedness Bag for a 72 Hour survival—featuring Hadja Lahbib, the European Commissioner for Preparedness and Crisis Management. The video, intended to raise awareness on emergency preparedness, instead sparked a wave of irony, frustration and scepticism among Portuguese, Spanish and German users.

Many viewers questioned the timing and tone of the message, with some interpreting it as fear-mongering rather than a genuine attempt at empowerment. Others expressed cynicism toward the idea of resilience as a shared responsibility, highlighting the disconnect between institutional messaging and the everyday struggles of citizens dealing with rising living costs. The imagery and urgency of the campaign also drew comparisons to dystopian fiction and suggesting that the real goal might be to prepare the public for something they are not being told.

Reframing Crisis Communication

We need to fundamentally rethink what is the goal of crisis communication. Crisis communication must become a form of public empowerment, integrated in the daily fabric of society. People need more than information during a crisis; they need clarity, trust, and the sense that they are part of the solution. They need emotional preparedness.

The backlash to the 72-hour preparedness campaign offers an important lesson: communication cannot exist in a vacuum. When messages are perceived as top-down, alarmist, or disconnected from everyday realities, they risk not only being dismissed, but actively ridiculed. Crisis communication must therefore be grounded in empathy and credibility, avoiding abstraction and jargon and acknowledging the social and economic contexts in which people live.

This shift also means rethinking the language we use when we talk about risk. What works better to communicate urgency—terms like climate change and global warming, or phrases like climate crisis and climate emergency?

More importantly, how do these messages land across different audiences?

Communicating outside of emergencies should become a practice as well. When risk awareness becomes part of education, urban planning and even cultural memory, crisis communication becomes a reflex. Countries like Japan have normalised—from early education to workplace routines—disaster preparedness into public every life. Earthquake and tsunami drills are regularly held in schools, emergency kits are common in homes and clear signs for evacuation routes are present in public spaces.

In Europe, we are not there yet. But as disasters intensify, that shift is necessary. That means clear, localised messaging, investing in long-term trust and education, while fostering emotional resilience and preparedness.

Ignite Your Inspiration

Join Our Community

We are always searching for contributions to the field of strategic communication. If you are involved in or know of relevant events, projects, or initiatives, we encourage you to share these with us: info@gdginspire.com

📥 Feedback and ideas are welcome and encouraged! Share your thoughts, insights, or suggestions.