This summer, many people in the UK have faced the real-world impacts of the climate crisis, from wildfires and extreme heat to water restrictions and school closures. These events have brought the issue of climate change into daily life, prompting discussions about how to prepare for future challenges. However, with public trust in institutions declining and the natural environment slowly recovering from drought, there is a growing challenge: how to effectively communicate climate risks and solutions to the public. Simon Stiell, the head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, has pointed out that while climate change is sometimes viewed as a political issue, it touches on fundamental concerns such as health, safety, economic stability, and household costs. In terms of policy, climate action is generally divided into two areas: mitigation, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adaptation, which focuses on preparing for the unavoidable impacts of climate change. However, a recent study by Climate Outreach found that many people in the UK do not clearly distinguish between these two approaches. Only about half of those surveyed understood the concept of "climate adaptation." This lack of clarity was evident in the mixed public reaction to the UK government’s "severe alert" on wildfire risk in mid-August, with some people feeling the alert was excessive and others believing the government should focus more on reducing carbon emissions from the energy sector. As climate impacts become more immediate and visible, the challenge is not just understanding the difference between mitigation and adaptation but also translating that understanding into support for policies that address both. Rowena Hill, a professor at Nottingham Trent University, notes that people want to know what actions are effective and how to take them. However, there is a delicate balance in assigning responsibility. For example, a recent government campaign encouraging people to reduce their daily water use by 28 litres was questioned for placing too much responsibility on individuals, when a significant portion of water loss is due to aging infrastructure and underinvestment in the water system. Hill argues that shifting the message from "you are responsible" to "we are responsible" can help empower people without overwhelming them. Public trust in political institutions remains low, with research suggesting that elected officials often misjudge the level of public support for climate policies. A survey by Ipsos this summer found that more than a third of Britons believed the Labour government had done a poor job addressing the climate crisis since taking office in July 2024. Trust can be built by making climate risks more relevant to people’s everyday lives. Hill emphasizes the importance of focusing on local community risks rather than broad, generalized analyses. This was evident in the public reaction to the felling of the Sycamore Gap tree, which highlighted a deep emotional connection to the immediate environment. To better connect with diverse audiences, Climate Outreach uses insights from the "More in Common" project, which identifies seven distinct segments within the British public based on their values. By understanding these differences, messaging can be tailored to resonate across political and social divides. This approach is being used by Greener Henley, a local charity that works on climate and nature-based initiatives. The charity’s executive director, Kate Oldridge, explains that they aim to engage people across the political spectrum by offering practical, community-focused actions. For example, they are working with schools to develop climate action plans, such as cooling classrooms in summer and protecting playgrounds from flooding. These efforts not only drive local change but also provide inspiration for policymakers, showing that communities can achieve meaningful progress together. For the volunteers involved, the work offers a sense of hope and shared purpose in the face of a global challenge.