Gabrielle Fagundez

Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, public skepticism and motivational deficits persist. Effective climate change communication requires not only presenting scientific information but also conveying the real, ongoing impacts of climate disruption. This paper examines Juliana v. United States, a landmark youth-led climate lawsuit, through the lens of Aristotelian rhetoric to demonstrate how emotional appeals (pathos) enhance the effectiveness of climate change communication. The study analyzes how climate litigation cases function not only as a legal tool but also as a powerful communicative resource capable of shaping public understanding and mobilizing civic engagement. The analysis highlights how the Plaintiffs’ narratives in the Juliana case — detailing personal, emotional, cultural, and spiritual harms —translate abstract scientific risks into concrete lived experiences. Emotions such as fear, indignation, and pity alter the hearers’ state, both public and judicial, and influence their judgments. Situated within Aristotle’s framework of logos, ethos, and pathos, the case exemplifies how pathos can ethically support deliberation, address epistemic inequalities, and persuade audiences of the gravity of climate change. Although the lawsuit ultimately failed to reach trial, it catalyzed global youth-led climate litigation and contributed significantly to public discourse by framing climate change as an already unfolding crisis. The study concludes that the Juliana case demonstrates how Aristotelian ethical and persuasive rhetoric— especially the strategic use of pathos — can contribute to effective climate change communication, and how the combined force of emotion, credibility, and reason can foster more compelling public engagement with the climate crisis.