Don’t Debunk – Reframe: How to tackle (climate) myths without reinforcing them

Communications professionals face a growing challenge: more and more people are making decisions based on false or misleading information. 

For those in the environment movement, this could be disinformation about renewable energy, electric vehicles or the cost of climate action. The falsehoods have escaped digital echo chambers, entered mainstream political discourse, and are shaping how people vote, buy, and whether they support or oppose critical reforms.

In response, well-meaning organisations sometimes try to “bust myths”, hoping that facts will trump feelings. But this approach can backfire. Repeating disinformation, even to debunk it, can reinforce it in people’s minds. The more familiar an idea becomes, the more likely people are to believe it. That’s why so many of these myths, despite being easily disproven, stick. 

Cognitive linguist George Lakoff sums it up nicely: “When you negate a frame, you activate the frame.” Telling someone “renewables aren’t unreliable” or “EVs aren’t fire hazards” doesn’t remove the association. It cements it.

The EV safety myth

A recent study led by the University of Queensland found that nearly half of Australians surveyed (47%) believe EVs are more likely to catch fire than petrol or diesel cars. This myth remains fairly entrenched, despite the evidence to the contrary. It's even prevalent among EV owners.

Research from EV FireSafe shows that EVs have a strong safety record. But the myth endures partly because of how it’s addressed. Well-intentioned media pieces and social media posts often open with lines like ‘EVs don’t catch fire more than petrol cars,’ which, while true, repeat the claim and anchor the reader’s attention to it.

A better approach is to bypass the myth entirely and assert the truth from your own values-led framing. For example:

“EVs have an excellent safety record and are subject to strict design and battery standards.”

Lead with your own story

Instead of referencing disinformation, campaigners should lead with their own frames, based on values, evidence and their vision of the future.

Say:

“Renewables are the cheapest source of new electricity in Australia.”

Not:

“Renewables aren’t too expensive.”

Say:

“EVs are a clean, modern alternative to petrol vehicles.”

Not:

“EVs don’t have safety issues.”

The precise words you choose can fundamentally shape how people understand and absorb your message. If you start by naming the myth, you’re playing the game your opponent has chosen, even if you go on to refute it.

Don’t advertise your opponent’s message

Some people worry that if you don’t explicitly name or debunk false claims, they’ll go unchallenged. That’s a valid concern, but it doesn’t mean you should repeat the claim itself.

There’s a big difference between avoiding a harmful frame and ignoring its existence. If a damaging narrative is already dominating the public debate, there are ways to respond strategically. But even then, it’s important to maintain discipline.

Instead of correcting a lie, state the truth. Instead of describing what something isn’t, describe what it is. And instead of validating your opponent’s language, make yours more visible, more credible, and more memorable.

The aim isn’t to avoid difficult topics. It’s to own the terms of the conversation.

The cost of getting it wrong

The stakes are getting higher. Climate change is the great moral challenge of our generation, someone once said. Decisions are being made in boardrooms, newsrooms and at the ballot box. And in too many cases, they’re being influenced by ideas that aren’t true.

If the climate and environment movement doesn’t tighten its approach to public communications, we risk losing ground not because we’re wrong but because we’re unclear.

That’s why framing matters. And why the right strategy doesn’t involve advertising the myths we’re trying to dismantle.

How to tackle persistent myths without repeating them

1. Don’t start with the myth. Start with the values and facts that matter to your audience.

2. Say what’s true. Don’t define your message by what it’s not.

3. Avoid reactive messaging unless absolutely necessary. And even then, don’t amplify your opponent’s language.

4. Repeat the messages you want to stick. Familiarity is persuasive, make the truth familiar.

5. Test for recall. If people remember the falsehood more than your point, your message needs refining.

Campaign Republic works with movements and organisations to shape public narratives without reinforcing the wrong ones. If you're planning a campaign, start by defining what you want people to believe, not what you want them to unlearn.