Climate Activist David Attenborough
Documentaries
As the primary method of his advocacy, Attenborough’s nature documentaries have a documented impact on public opinion, attitude, and action. His films have raised awareness about climate change globally and led to short-term behavior changes in viewers, such as reducing plastic use. They have also influenced policy decisions. However, their long-term impact remains limited. While the documentaries capture attention and evoke strong emotions from viewers, there is no evidence they lead to sustained behavior change.
Attenborough’s documentaries have reached enormous global audiences. Our Planet was streamed on 45 million Netflix accounts, reaching an estimated 90-180 million viewers in its first month. Blue Planet II became the most-watched British TV show of 2017, seen by over 1 billion people. His following documentary, A Life on Our Planet, was accompanied by a bestselling book featured on both the New York Times and Financial Times lists.
This broad exposure has translated into measurable behavior change. It is known as the “Attenborough effect,” a term that describes the influence his documentaries have on public attitudes and behavior toward the environment. An example is the response to Blue Planet II. After watching the series, 88 percent of people in a UK survey said they had changed their behavior. The same survey suggests that the number of people using renewable water bottles rose by 60%. Among 18- to 24-year-olds, the increase was even higher, at over 70%, which might indicate that younger audiences are more receptive to his messages. Online interest also surged, with searches for “dangers of plastic in the ocean” doubling and “plastic recycling” increased by 50%.
Attenborough’s influence has extended beyond behavior to actual policy impact. In the wake of Blue planet 2, the UK underwent a so-called “war on plastics.” This campaign included government bans on single-use plastic items such as straws, stirrers, cotton buds, and bags. The society for conservation biology mentions that the media stir created by the film caught the attention of major policymakers like Theresa May, who praised the documentary for “vividly highlighting” the issue of plastic in our oceans. The documentary was even referred to in the speech introducing the 25 year environment plan launched by the UK. This plan involved an increased commitment to tackle legislation surrounding plastic waste and was attributed to an 83% reduction in plastic carrier bags, eventually leading to an ambitious commitment to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by 2041.
His documentaries’ impact can in part be explained by Attenborough’s long-standing reputation for trust and credibility, built over 70 years in British culture. According to YouGov polls in 2018, he is the UK’s most popular and trusted public figure, which strengthens the impact of his work.
The emotional impact of Attenborough’s documentaries also contributes to their effectiveness. A study measuring viewers’ emotional responses found a significant increase in motivation to act on climate issues, confirmed by statistical tests. This increase supports Schwartz’s norm activation theory, which suggests that people are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors when they feel morally responsible and emotionally connected. Attenborough’s films activate this sense of personal responsibility by combining factual information with powerful, emotional storytelling.
Table 1 & 2: t-Test results.
The structure of the documentaries is a key reason for this impact. The first half often confronts viewers with the scale and urgency of environmental destruction caused by human activity. This heightens awareness and concern. However, instead of ending on despair, the second half offers hopeful, solution-focused narratives that show positive changes already happening. This shift avoids overwhelming the audience and instead fosters a belief that their actions can contribute to progress. Such an approach increases self-efficacy, a key driver of motivation according to motivation theory, which suggests that people are more likely to act if they believe their efforts will make a difference.
Attenborough’s documentaries derive their influence not only from compelling storytelling but also from strong scientific legitimacy. This credibility stems from collaborations with trusted organizations such as UNEP, the British Antarctic Survey, Flora and Fauna International, and WWF, which help ensure the accuracy of the content. These partnerships make viewers more likely to trust the information and respond to it.
Moreover, most of Attenborough’s documentaries have been produced in partnership with the BBC, specifically its Natural History Unit. Known globally for its high production standards and factual accuracy, the BBC helps his work reach broad audiences and reinforces its authority. This long-standing collaboration has been central to the documentaries’ ability to raise awareness, shift public attitudes, and influence environmental behavior.
Despite these successes, there are limitations to the impact his documentaries make. While Blue Planet II and other documentaries capture viewers’ attention and evoke strong emotions, there is limited evidence that they lead to sustained long-term behavior change. Analysis of over 2 million tweets about Our Planet revealed that while initial responses were positive, public engagement fluctuated and often focused on the featured animals rather than the environmental issues behind their decline. This suggests that, although his documentaries powerfully capture emotional attention, this does not always translate into a deeper understanding or lasting behavioral change. Despite increased motivation immediately after viewing, there is limited evidence showing sustained action, highlighting a key challenge in maintaining impact beyond initial awareness.
The BBC’s commitment to impartiality has also constrained the documentaries’ ability to make explicit calls to action or advocate specific policies. To overcome these constraints and strengthen his environmental messaging, Attenborough has increasingly turned to global streaming platforms like Netflix. Netflix offers fewer editorial constraints and greater freedom to depict the direct consequences of human activity. Documentaries like Our Planet and A Life on Our Planet have thus reached over 150 countries, blending science with advocacy and forging partnerships with NGOs to amplify their impact. However, this shift has led to new challenges, such as debates over the psychological impact of graphic imagery and concerns about audience fatigue.
Additionally, political factors shape how his messages are received, with research showing that responses can vary based on political affiliation. For example, audiences aligned with progressive parties tend to be more receptive to his environmental calls than more conservative groups.
Despite these complexities, Attenborough’s blend of scientific rigor, emotional storytelling, and growing advocacy has made his documentaries a powerful force in raising awareness and motivating environmental action worldwide.
In summary, Sir David Attenborough’s documentaries have reached vast global audiences and contributed to raising awareness about environmental issues. Evidence suggests they have influenced short-term behavior changes and, in some cases, helped prompt policy responses, such as the UK’s measures on plastic waste following Blue Planet II. However, the extent to which these documentaries lead to sustained long-term behavioral change remains uncertain. Overall, they continue to play a significant role in shaping public discourse around climate change.
Collaboration with WWF – Save Our Wild Isles Campaign
David Attenborough’s collaboration with the WWF through the Save Our Wild Isles campaign played a pivotal role in drawing public attention to the need for wildlife restoration in the UK. The campaign generated widespread media coverage and public engagement, which directly inspired the UK’s three leading environmental organizations—WWF, the RSPB, and the National Trust to unite for the first time. This historic collaboration led to the creation of the People’s Plan for Nature, a nationwide initiative aimed at reversing nature loss.
Attenborough’s campaign to preserve the nature of the UK inspired these organizations to unite and create the People’s Plan for Nature – a nationwide initiative focused on restoring the natural environment, launched in 2023. The project created the People’s Assembly for Nature, a forum made up of citizens from across the country who come together to discuss and decide on actions to protect and restore nature. This assembly uses an innovative decision-making process called RAPID democracy, which involves three steps: gathering input, making recommendations and agreeing on actions to carry out, and lastly, performing them. Many of the policies entombed in The People’s Plan for Nature continue to influence the assembly, and the recommendations within the plan continue to be promoted and acted upon by various organizations and advocacy groups.
A study by WWF, RSPB, and the National Trust showed that the assembly had a real impact. By the end of the assembly, there was a 34% increase in participants that felt they knew “a lot” about UK nature, while those that felt they knew “very little” decreased to 3%. Awareness of UK nature loss also increased, with 67% of participants agreeing that the country had lost too much of its natural land. In addition, 34% more people said they believed they could personally make a difference, and many more felt they had a responsibility to protect nature. The process was also positively received: 90% of participants rated their experience 4 or 5 out of 5, and 98% said they enjoyed it. Many participants said the final plan felt like it had been “written by people from all walks of life,” which gave it legitimacy and broad public trust.
While there is no definitive study confirming that the 26 actions directly “caused” the People’s Plan, the sequence of events and credible reporting strongly suggest that the campaign created widespread awareness and momentum. This public engagement then shaped the environment in which the People’s Plan emerged. The Plan’s structure and urgency reflect many of the themes raised by Attenborough’s campaign, suggesting that Save Our Wild Isles played an indirect yet influential role in inspiring broader community action and shaping the national conservation agenda.
The Save Our Wild Isles campaign also resulted in direct environmental action. It led to the RSPB purchasing a new rainforest reserve in Scotland and restoring it, in tandem with an invasive mice eradication campaign that aimed to increase the number of albatrosses across the island. It further provided £1 million to support community-led projects focused on protecting and restoring local nature. The campaign also inspired Young Voices for Nature, a project involving over 200 young people, who created a 20-minute film to raise awareness among younger audiences. Over 220 businesses and organizations hosted campaign screenings, including Nestlé, PepsiCo, Aviva, PwC, M&S, Premier League, OVO, and BlackRock.
The campaign has also influenced political agendas. The cumulative impact of the campaign eventually reached MPs, with the topic of the isles being of concern to policymakers across parties and ensuring nature’s presence in election manifestos. In July 2023, a high-profile event called the Save Our Wild Isles Reception was held in Westminster Abbey Gardens. It brought together MPs, business leaders, and community organizations. Attendees included MPs like Jeff Smith (Labour), who publicly affirmed the plan’s legitimacy and committed to championing its recommendations in Parliament. Through this parliamentary event, over hundreds of other MPs across parties publicly pledged support for stronger environmental protections, signaling cross-party engagement.
In the run-up to the July 2024 general election, key parties, including the Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Green Party, explicitly incorporated commitments focused on nature and biodiversity into their manifestos. The Labour Party pledged a “Countryside Protection Plan” with nine new National River Walks, three new National Forests, and bans on harmful pesticides. On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats committed to doubling nature by 2050 – protecting at least 30% of land and sea, planting 60 million trees annually, and introducing a new Environmental Rights Act. While the plan has not been adopted into policy, it has been used by multiple parties and MPs as a legitimized public mandate for stronger environmental action.
Organizations like RSPB, WWF, Wildlife Trusts, Butterfly Conservation publicly endorsed the People’s Plan, using it as a reference in formal consultations and advocating for it in parliamentary and local authority submissions. On social media and through green networks, activists say the campaign raised visibility and awareness of nature-focused local campaigning—though they also note frustration at the slow pace of legally binding reforms without government commitment.
Written evidence submitted by Wildlife and Countryside Link (including WWF, RSPB) to a parliamentary committee in April 2022 praised the campaign’s emphasis on integrating nature into strategic policy and planning frameworks. However, no prominent independent economic or environmental think-tank report has specifically measured the campaign’s direct causal impact on legislation. While academic studies often highlight the general value of public mobilization on biodiversity policy, attribution to Save Our Wild Isles remains unquantified in peer-reviewed work. Some journals acknowledge the People’s plan as a strong model of participatory policymaking but address that its influence is shaped by governmental follow-through, often regarded as fickle.
The People’s Seat
The People’s Seat campaign had a significant reach in raising public engagement with climate change. It reached over 1.3 billion people and encouraged personal climate action through tools like the ActNow.bot. The campaign was praised for its innovative communication strategy and received a Gold award at the Cannes Lions. However, its influence on concrete policy outcomes was limited. While some linked progress at COP24, such as a global emissions agreement, to the campaign, others saw it as largely symbolic. Structural challenges within COP negotiations, political resistance, and digital exclusion all limited its ability to influence decision-making. Overall, The People’s Seat was effective in raising awareness but had limited impact on systemic change.
The campaign raised global climate awareness and boosted public engagement by reaching over 1.3 billion people. It encouraged individuals to take climate action through digital tools like the ActNow.bot, which promoted daily behavior changes grounded in collective impact. As of 2021 (3 years after its implementation), the UN has recorded 26,701,420 actions taken around the world. However, it is hard to identify if these actions have encouraged permanent behavioral change.
Nevertheless, surveys conducted after the campaign showed that support for the United Nations increased, especially in the United States. This is significant given the US’s role as both a major global power and one of the world’s largest polluters. While senior US leaders have historically been absent from key climate conferences, growing public approval of the UN could increase pressure on high-level officials to participate more directly in future negotiations. Its innovative communication strategy earned a Cannes Lions Gold award, highlighting its success in mobilizing a broad and diverse audience.
The campaign’s ability to engage a wide audience stemmed from its effective use of social media and digital platforms, allowing people worldwide to directly share their climate experiences and opinions with global leaders via the hashtag #TakeYourSeat. Sir David Attenborough’s involvement amplified the campaign’s credibility and reach, with his “People’s Seat Address,” compiled from public contributions, reaching over 16 million viewers within the first 24 hours. This approach improved perceptions of the United Nations and demonstrated how digital engagement can connect everyday individuals to international climate discussions.
However, despite its broad reach and engagement, the initiative did not lead to lasting, measurable behavior change nor did it translate public sentiment into direct, measurable policy outcomes. Even though the ActNow.bot showed strong interest in personal climate action, no data demonstrates widespread or enduring behavioral change attributable to the campaign.
Wider issues with the campaign stem from its focus on a single event, COP24, which limited its potential for long-term impact. By centering around a one-off moment, the campaign risked being seen as a short-term solution rather than a sustained effort to drive climate action. This approach may have fostered a “one-and-done” mindset, where people felt they had contributed enough by simply participating once, rather than understanding the need for continuous climate action. Its reliance on digital communication also may not have reached communities most vulnerable to climate change, particularly those without consistent access to social media or online platforms.
In line with that, skepticism around the COP conference continues, with journalists suggesting the marginalized voices, such as vulnerable voices from the Global South and Indigenous communities, remain sidelined and are often not heard at these conferences. The People’s Seat did not help, as the ability to meaningfully participate often requires significant epistemic and material resources, which creates disadvantages for youth from developing countries.
As for leading to policy change, the campaign has received some credit for inspiring action, but there is no definitive evidence proving a direct impact. Some commentators credited the campaign with helping inspire the historic agreement at COP24, where 200 countries committed to capping greenhouse gas emissions. It also received credit for inspiring several EU members and developing nations who strengthened their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) during the conference. However, there is no direct evidence linking these policy changes to the campaign. Many critics viewed the People’s Seat as largely symbolic. They argued that, ultimately, actions are determined by delegates, leaving the public with no meaningful input.
Its impact on policy-making was limited by the campaign’s reliance on political institutions. As a UN initiative, it depended on the participation of world leaders, yet major polluters like the United States and China were absent from COP24 and did not hear the “People’s Address.” In addition, several countries, including the US, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Russia, rejected the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which provides scientific assessments on climate change for policymakers. This rejection reflects what some describe as the “Trump effect,” where climate science became increasingly politicized, leading to mistrust and inaction at international levels. These political obstacles undermined the campaign’s goal of connecting public voices with policy outcomes and revealed the limits of symbolic engagement when the underlying political will is lacking.
In summary, The People’s Seat successfully amplified climate change awareness and public engagement, earning significant acclaim for its communications strategy. However, its effectiveness in directly shaping policy outcomes remains a complex and debated issue among sources, with some attributing a major agreement to it, while others point to the systemic barriers and persistent marginalization of vulnerable voices within the broader COP framework.
IExRAIA Summer Research Program:
This article is an excerpt from a report on David Attenborough produced as part of an RAIA research program on climate leaders. For a full picture of Ruto’s climate leadership, including the sources, read the full report. This project was fully financed by IE University’s IE School of Politics, Economics and Global Affairs.
Author: Giulio Guiducci & Jayveer Gautam
Editor: Réka Baranyai
Project Leads: Roxane de Bergevin & Stefani Obradovic
Table of Contents
