5 Words We Need to Stop Using in Climate Change Conversations
By: Tabitha Whiting
Tags: Environment, Words, Language, Sustainability, Climate Change

5 Words We Need to Stop Using in Climate Change Conversations Tabitha Whiting Follow Oct 11 · 5 min read

I’m not saying that language is what’s stopping us from adequately addressing the climate emergency. But I am saying that it has a part to play, and that some of the words commonly used around the topic of climate change are problematic. Here are 5 of those words.

1. Change

Photo by Ross Findon on Unsplash

Let’s start with the obvious one: change. ‘Climate change’ is now the most commonly used phrase to describe the long-term shifts in weather conditions and temperature caused by human-generated greenhouse gases.

It used to be described as global warming — but, quite rightly, there was a feeling that ‘warming’ did not truly reflect the reality of the impacts this phenomemon is responsible for, suggesting temperature changes alone.

‘Change’, though, has its own issues. The main issue is that ‘change’ is a neutral term. Change can be good, and change can be bad. There’s no urgency, and nothing that suggests climate change is something that with have vast, negative impacts.

This is dangerous because it could inadvertently play into the main narrative of climate sceptics — that our earth’s climate naturally fluctuates, and we’re simply in a period of increased temperatures currently, with nothing to do with human activity.

Over recent years we’ve seen growth in the use of the terms ‘climate crisis’ and ‘climate emergency’ instead of climate change, which have the benefit of invoking urgency and the need to act now. However, these terms could also end up being damaging — we tend to associate ‘crisis’ and ‘emergency’ with short-term problems which are over relatively quickly. Climate change doesn’t fit that. It’s a long-term emergency, and the danger is that these terms lose their impact with the general public as time goes on.

“There is a limited semantic ‘budget’ for using the language of emergency, and it’s possible you can lose audiences over time, particularly if there are no meaningful policies addressing the fact that there really is an ongoing emergency.” — Dr David Holmes, director of the Climate Change Communication Research Hub

There’s no perfect answer, but it’s important to be aware of the different connotations of these terms when having conversations with others about climate change.

2. Believe

Photo by Ran Berkovich on Unsplash

“Do you believe in climate change?”

It’s a question I see all too often — from Twitter threads to political debates. The problem with this question lies in the use of the word ‘believe’.

Belief has no place in conversations about climate change. 97% of the world’s research scientists agree that climate change exists, is caused by human activity, and will have vast and devastating impacts unless we start making drastic changes right now to the way that we live. It’s fact. Proven, scientific fact. There’s simply no room for belief. When we continue to use this word around the topic of climate change, we allow there to be room for belief.

And when we allow room for belief, we also allow room for disbelief, scepticism, and denial. Either you agree that we need to address climate change now, or you’re wrong (and likely have an ulterior motive to do with allowing capitalism to continue to thrive).

3. Goals

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

Whether it’s goals for reaching net-zero or targets set by The Paris Agreement, it’s very common to see headlines focused on climate goals and targets — and usually focused on the likelihood of us missing them.

These goals are important if we are to tackle the climate emergency. But when we focus on facts, targets, and statistics, it becomes too easy to dehumanise the climate emergency.

What those goals represent are lives. If Western societies fail to reach net-zero carbon by 2050 then we are threatening the lives of those at the front line of climate impacts, and failing to protect our fellow humans. It’s all too easy to forget that when we talk about climate change in terms of goals and targets.

4. Fight

Climate action and climate policy are often framed as part of the ‘fight against climate change’. We paint the picture that we are battling with this external force of ‘climate change’ which is overpowering us.

The reality is that it is humans who have caused climate change. And it is humans who have the power to halt it. It’s nothing to do with us ‘defeating’ the mightly power of climate change. The power lies in our hands, or rather, in the hands of the oil and gas giants to stop extracting and burning fossil fuels to drive our capitalist consumerist society, and politicians to force them to do so.

The word ‘solve’ can be added to this list for very similar reasons. We don’t need to ‘solve’ climate change. The solution is simple: stop pouring more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Searching for ‘solutions’ is only a distraction.

5. Neutral

How many adverts have you seen from large brands claiming that they’re going ‘100% carbon neutral’? Well, watch out, because it’s a classic greenwashing term.

The term carbon neutral means that the creation of a product or service does not produce any carbon emissions. Sounds great. But carbon neutrality usually comes from a combination of a brand reducing the carbon emissions of their practice and supply chain (for instance, through installing solar panels on a warehouse roof to provide renewable energy, and from the brand purchasing carbon offsets — paying someone else to capture or avoid emitting enough carbon emissions to ‘neutralise’ the carbon emissons they are causing.

Carbon offsets and carbon neutrality offer brands a way to assuage their climate guilt without actually doing anything to reduce their direct carbon footprint, and the ability to plaster ‘sustainable’ all over their marketing in order to win over ethically-minded customers.

It’s similar to the idea of ‘net zero’ which you’ll often hear politicians talk of, and which represents a combination of reducing emissions as well as relying on carbon capture technology to fix the problem. We want the focus to be on reducing direct carbon emissions, or we’re never going to get ourselves out of this crisis, simply racing against the planet to find more and more ways to capture the growing carbon emissions we continue to rack up.

They’re terms to be very wary of. Make sure you do your research before you buy from that ‘carbon neutral’ brand or trust the claims coming out of a politician’s when they talk about ‘net zero carbon’.