Column: Check out the TV shows nudging people to act on climate

15

The whole scene lasted just over a minute. The crucial dialogue, not even 15 seconds.

But when a character from HBO’s “Sex and the City” ordered steak tacos at Chipotle — then changed her mind and chose a plant-based protein instead — she may have convinced a lot of people that eating less meat is healthier, and better for the planet.

Researchers at conservation nonprofit Rare studied viewer responses to the scene, which aired during Season 2 of “Sex and the City” reboot “And Just Like That…” (currently streaming on Max). It featured Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) and Charlotte (Kristin Davis) waiting in line at Chipotle, fretting about whether their teenage kids might have hooked up with each other.

When they get to the front of the line, an employee asks Miranda what she’d like to order.

Two tacos, corn, she says nonchalantly. What kind of protein? Steak, please.

Then, suddenly, Miranda gets a panicked look.

“Uhh, you know what? Maybe I should try one of those plant-based things. Yeah, I’m gonna try that,” she says.

There’s no moralizing, no discussion of all the heat-trapping carbon pollution unleashed by animal agricultural. Climate change isn’t even mentioned. Nor are the health dangers of eating too much red meat, such as higher risk of heart disease.

Nevertheless, the lessons seem to resonate.

Rare’s researchers surveyed 6,000 people, showing them either the scene as it originally aired or one of two edited versions. In one version, Rare spliced out the part where Miranda starts by asking for steak, so that viewers only see her order a plant-based protein. In the other version, viewers only see her order steak. Afterward, researchers gauged viewers’ feelings about meat.

The results — shared exclusively with The Times ahead of their release Thursday — are remarkable.

Compared with survey participants who watched the steak-only scene, participants who watched the other versions were several percentage points more likely to say that eating less meat is healthier (45% vs. 42%) and better for the environment (44% vs. 40%). They were also more likely to say that people should consume less meat because it’s the right thing to do (44% vs. 40%).

Showing “Sex and the City” characters choose plant-based protein is especially valuable because “people don’t like to be preached to about food,” said Anirudh Tiwathia, Rare’s director of behavioral science for entertainment and the study’s lead author.

“Having something that can show up quietly, from characters they already love, is one of our only viable options,” Tiwathia said.

“If we don’t alter food, we blow past 1.5 degrees Celsius,” he added, referring to a key global climate target.

The nonprofit is still preparing to submit the study to a peer-reviewed journal. But I’m sharing the results with you now because they track with a long history of evidence that entertainment shapes how we understand and interact with the world.

In the same way that public education campaigns on cable channels BET and MTV raised awareness of HIV/AIDS, television shows and films that reflect the reality of the climate crisis — and spotlight solutions — can help us confront this existential threat.

Fortunately, some TV shows are already doing it.

Another report released Thursday by USC’s Norman Lear Center — also shared exclusively with The Times — analyzed more than 200,000 hours of unscripted programming that aired on U.S. broadcast and cable channels in late 2022 and early 2023. The shows included docuseries, reality TV, cooking, travel and lifestyle series, game shows, talk shows, comedy and paranormal series.

USC researchers counted 28,424 mentions of 75 climate- and sustainability-related keywords, an extensive list that ranged from “renewable” to “oil drilling.” They found that climate-friendly behaviors were by far the most likely to come up, with four terms — “vegan,” “vegetarian,” “solar” and “insulation” — accounting for half of all mentions, largely on cooking and home shows.

The mentions reached huge audiences, racking up 7.3 billion total views.

Crucially, those audiences were almost certainly politically diverse. Earlier research from the Norman Lear Center determined that reality shows and other unscripted programs attract many more conservative viewers than scripted sitcoms and dramas.

The more Americans are exposed to climate solutions on their screens, the more likely they are to buy in.

“It’s about normalizing,” said Dana Weinstein, a project specialist at the Norman Lear Center’s Media Impact Project and a report co-author. “If we keep showing the sustainable behavior on TV, it keeps building the societal pressure and cultural shift.”

Unlike a previous Media Impact Project report that analyzed several years of scripted TV episodes and movies — finding that not even 3% mentioned climate — this one didn’t offer a percentage. Still, the researchers made several intriguing discoveries.

They compared different genres of unscripted TV, finding that home shows, such as “House Hunters International” and “Building Off the Grid,” had by far the most climate mentions — more than one-quarter of the 28,424. Docuseries were next, thanks in part to wildlife shows. Next up were food shows (vegetarians in the house!), followed by (surprisingly, at least to me) sports shows.

One in six sports mentions came from “Extreme E,” a Fox Sports program about off-road electric vehicle racing.

On home shows, the most frequently used sustainability keyword was “insulation.” If you’re wondering what makes insulation a climate solution, the trick is that well-insulated homes are better at temperature regulation and don’t require nearly as much air conditioning or heating — meaning less energy consumption, and less fossil fuel combustion. Also lower power bills.

“The motive doesn’t matter if it’s encouraging [people] to engage in these more sustainable behaviors,” said Erica Rosenthal, the Norman Lear Center’s research director and a report co-author. “Whether they’re doing that for climate or not is irrelevant.”

Alas, hardly any food shows featured induction cooktops, a key tool for reducing heat-trapping emissions and unhealthy indoor air pollution from gas cooking. But HGTV’s “Property Brothers” did. Co-host Jonathan Scott — who also made a pro-rooftop solar documentary excoriating utility companies — explained that with induction, “you can boil water twice as fast.”

“And no fossil fuels in the house, so you don’t have those emissions,” he said on the show.

USC researchers recorded the fewest climate mentions in unscripted children’s, court, true crime and religious programming.

But more disappointing to me were the genres in the middle of the pack — comedies, talk shows and reality TV.

As I’ve written previously, there’s huge untapped potential for climate comedy, both to keep ourselves sane as the world burns and to spur action. With talk shows, it’s crazy to me that late night hosts in particular — I’m looking at you, Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel — aren’t talking more about one of the biggest stories in history (especially when they could be using it to roast politicians). As for reality TV, are you really making a show about reality if climate change isn’t part of it?

Still, the report offered reasons for hope as well as frustration — including a quote from a prominent Fox Sports pundit.

“We have video of glaciers melting. We have a global warming issue, and people are like, ‘That’s politics!’ No, it’s environmental,” Colin Cowherd said on his program, to help make a point about football statistics. “I don’t care about the politics of it.”

If Cowherd can see it, hopefully his viewers and listeners can learn to do the same.

Some final food for thought: If 15 seconds of TV can move the needle on climate, just imagine what a full episode can do.

Actually, there’s no need to imagine: The researchers at Rare tested that, too.

In 2019, CBS aired an episode of “Madam Secretary” titled “The New Normal,” in which a super typhoon threatens to destroy the Pacific island nation of Nauru — a typhoon whose ferocity the show explicitly links to rising temperatures. The lead character, U.S. Secretary of State Elizabeth McCord (Téa Leoni), must develop a plan for evacuating and relocating the local population.

Alas, I haven’t seen “Madam Secretary,” but Tiwathia assured me the climate episode is highly entertaining. That’s one reason he and his colleagues decided to gauge viewer responses. They recruited more than 1,000 U.S. survey participants, showing some of them “The New Normal” and others the very next episode of the show, which had nothing to do with climate change.

Again, the results of their study — currently being prepared for peer review — were remarkable.

Asked whether climate change poses a significant threat, participants who watched the non-climate episode were already pretty convinced. But those who watched “The New Normal” were even more convinced. Viewers who watched “The New Normal” were also more worried about rising temperatures, with average levels of worry rising from 65 to 73 out of 100.

Even more importantly, watching the climate episode prompted stronger support for climate action.

“The New Normal” viewers were more likely to support robust government action and more likely to say they would take personal action. In a sign that the episode’s specific themes resonated, viewers also expressed nearly four times higher support for the U.S. providing financial compensation to vulnerable countries harmed by U.S. climate pollution — countries such as Nauru.

Rare also found a big jump in support for the U.S. accepting climate migrants whose countries have become uninhabitable. That’s a hopeful data point at a time when an anti-immigrant demagogue is dangerously close to recapturing the White House.

In most cases, watching a single episode of television won’t change the way you see the world forever.

But Rare was pleased to discover, when it checked back in with participants a few weeks later, that some of the lessons from “The New Normal” had stuck. Immediately after watching, for instance, participants were nearly three times as likely to say they would only vote for politicians who support robust climate action. Two weeks later, they were still almost twice as likely to say yes.

They had become climate voters, at least temporarily.

“We did not expect this to last 15 days,” said Tiwathia, the study’s lead author.

Still, that newfound climate enthusiasm will almost certainly fade over time — at least without further activation.

That’s why it’s key, the researchers said, for Hollywood studios to partner with folks such as charities and advocacy groups, which can connect with audiences after they’ve seen a TV show or movie and direct them to climate information and other resources.

“There is a window of action,” Tiwathia said. “It’s not infinite.”

Maybe Hulu could use its social media accounts to introduce viewers to nonprofits installing solar in storm-ravaged communities. Maybe a network with a reality show about firefighters could give free ad time to a group looking to educate people on protecting themselves from wildfire smoke. Maybe the cast of “Sex and the City” could start filming promos for meat-free burgers.

I’m just spitballing here. The moral of the story is, TV can be more than entertainment. It can change the world for the better.

And right now, the world needs changing for the better.

Maybe it starts with steak-free tacos.

This column is the latest edition of Boiling Point, an email newsletter about climate change and the environment in California and the American West. You can sign up for Boiling Point here. And for more climate and environment news, follow @Sammy_Roth on X.