The climate change row shows the importance of clear, straightforward, memorable messages.

Swilling out my (low-fat) custard pot the other evening, I found myself pondering the futility of it all. Having got to middle age, without thinking that much about global warming or the environment, I am now having to consider what I am doing far more deliberately. Meanwhile, representatives from over 180 nations were recently gathered together in Copenhagen trying to agree what they are going to do to combat climate change.  Their visions of the future were nightmarish, even apocalyptic.

The gulf between the looming disaster and the action that each individual can take is enormous, and this gross mismatch is one of the main reasons why people are slow to do anything. In other areas of public policy - wearing seat belts, stopping smoking in public places, driving at lower speeds - there is a direct link between action taken and its impact.  We can see, in other words, what’s in it for us. With climate change the connections are so much more difficult to make. Recycling custard pots is hardly going to save the Maldives, is it?

In the other policy areas mentioned, one of the most significant reasons they have worked is not legal enforcement but peer pressure.  If one fails to wear a seatbelt or lights up a *** in a pub, it’s the fact that others will point out your transgressions that will make you change. But with the environment, I don’t sense any great peer pressure. I wash my custard pots because I choose to; if I didn’t wash them out, no-one would be telling me to do it.

Finally, the messages about what we should and shouldn’t do are complex and confusing.  Simplifying good nutrition into ‘5 a day’ was a real masterstroke of communication.  It probably won’t be possible to do this with climate change, but more needs to be done by activists, governments and organisations to make the actions we need to take as straightforward and memorable as possible.

But there are broader lessons here for organisations trying to bring about changes in behaviour. First, you must be able to have an answer to the question: 'What's in it for me?' People must see some benefit for themselves. Second, the change needs to be accepted by a critical mass who will also be disapproving of others not making the change. Third, the change must be as simple and easily understood as possible. When these three elements line up, the probability for successful behaviour change will be significantly higher.