News about climate change often focuses on disaster—rising temperatures, extreme weather, and collapsing ecosystems—leaving readers feeling powerless. A study from the University of Oregon suggests a different approach: solutions journalism. This type of reporting highlights ways to tackle problems, not just the problems themselves, while still following strong journalistic standards.

Unlike traditional reporting, which might describe worsening floods, solutions journalism also explores efforts to prevent them. The goal is not to sugarcoat reality but to present a fuller picture—one that shows both the crisis and possible responses.

Discouraging action

The study’s authors argue that traditional news often discourages action. “The way news is presented makes people think climate change is a problem for politicians to handle,” they say. “But reporting should empower readers by showing them what solutions exist and how they can help.”

Does solutions journalism change behavior? That’s still an open question. The study tested its impact by having over 400 American adults read a news story about flooding in Connecticut. Half saw a version that included details about a successful flood-control project, while the other half read a version without it.

Readers who saw the solutions-based story felt more hopeful, believed more in collective action, and were more likely to consider pro-environmental behaviors, such as donating to environmental groups. Those who read the standard version felt stuck in a problem with no clear way forward.

Accepting the limitations

But solutions journalism has limits. Sometimes, it makes people complacent—if a story suggests a problem is already being solved, readers may feel no need to act. The researchers suggest that the most effective stories show progress while making it clear that more work is needed. Connecting solutions to people’s personal or local experiences also makes them more engaging.

Not every news story should focus on solutions, nor should solutions journalism be mistaken for feel-good news. It must rigorously explain both the problem and the fix. “You can’t talk about solutions if you haven’t first explained the problem,” the researchers say. The goal is not to be blindly optimistic or overwhelmingly negative, but to give readers a clearer and more useful understanding of the world.