Environmentalists' Vocabulary Problem

May 4, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (4)

The New York Times wrote recently about an issue I've noticed in the comments of this blog  - climate change deniers' aversion to the terminology "global warming." It's true: we have a vocabulary problem.

From Climate Change Could Ruin Your Brunch:

I think that maple syrup will be the least of the worries if as you left wing, tree huggers claim that the world is coming to an end due to "Climate Change" aka global warming. Had to change the term because the data really doesn't support warming and you don't want to claim the next ice age is coming AGAIN like you did back in the 1970's. --Larry, Calif.*

From Citizen Scientists Monitor Global Warming:

Since world wide temps have been falling for the past 3 years - it's good they're changing the label on the bottle of snake oil to "Climate Change"... nice marketing. A bit of advice... fear the return of the ice - it's the real killer of the planet and civilization. -- R.L. Schaefer, Calif.

From Mermaids, Aliens and Bigfoot Want You to Believe in Clean Coal:

What happen to GLOBAL WARMING, Now its CLIMATE CHANGE. There is no human made climate change! No proof,Nada, Just like Bigfoot and Aliens, No proof, lots of believers just no proof sorry! Just the left tring to stop free markets [sic] -- Stacy, Fla.

The term is a turn-off, says a poll from ecoAmerica, because it evokes images of Birkenstock-wearing granola-eating "socialist" hippies. It also provides plenty of fodder for the 24-hour news networks when global warming protests or conversations take place on snowy days, like the recent Power Shift conference ("global warming" refers to the planet's overall temperature changes, not to daily weather - a fact that, understandably, can be misconstrued). "Climate change," is now the preferred term, as it is an easier sell.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”


Another problem, and one that members of the green blogosphere struggle with, is that the term "going green" has become so ubiquitous that it verges on losing its meaning altogether. The difficult thing is, no one's come up with a better one. And when all of these phrases and terms are renamed, comments from skeptics abound.

The article suggests that members of the environmental movement take cues from marketers, who work to rebrand companies all the time. But as environmentalists check their thesauruses, they'd do well to remember that rebranding, if done in haste, can be a gamble, as consumers and CEOs know all too well - New Coke, anyone?

 

*Comment is excerpted from the original, which was removed for violating our comment policy.

Tags:
environment

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Engaging in semantics over climate change or global warming avoids the real issue - simply CO2. While climate change advocates, the climatologists, and climate change deniers debate over the models for warming effects of CO2 the real crisis is ignored. CO2 has direct chemical effects which are far worse than global warming. First an foremost CO2 dissolves in the surface ocean where 1/4 of the trillion tonnes of CO2 already emitted during the fossil fuel age is making the ocean more acdic, 30% more in just decades. But worse CO2 nutures plants on land which are measurably growing greener and bushier and making better ground cover. Good you might think but the dust that the better ground cover is preventing from blowing in the winds is as critical for ocean produtivty as is the rain that blows in the wind is for land plants.

In just 30 years we've observed a many fold decimation of ocean plant life. 10% in the Southern Ocean, 17% in the N. Atlantic, 26% in the N. Pacific, and 50% in some tropical oceans. Those plants, the plankton and ocean pastures they used to sustain, are today not converting 4-5 billion tonnes of CO2 into ocean life. Instead those billions of tonnes of CO2 become deadly ocean acidification. All for the want of a little dust in the wind.

So while the climatologists fight to defend the turf and troughs of global warming and climate change they created against the deniers of anything and everything envrionmental the oceans are changing from life and fish filled seas to seas of bacteria and slime.

But all is not doom and gloom. 20 years and a quarter of a billion in ocean restoration research by scientists and engineers both public and private have shown we can replenish and restore the SEAS and affordably do so right away. For a fraction of the funds the climate change world wants to spend and deniers want to prevent fully 50% of the fossil CO2 problem can be grown into life filled sustainable ocean pastures in the same condition the ocean pasture were just 30 years ago. In the bargain half the crisis of fossil Co2 is solved and we provide restored pastures for fish... as Walt Whitman might have said, "all fish is plankton blooms."

Of course there is always a twist as both climate change pomoters and deniers are horrorfied that the basis for their interminable argument might be taken away with a low cost, immediately deployable, good for everyone and everything, technologially simple solution. Don't allow it the climate change advocates say we can't allow a solution costing 1% of the money we were counting on to generate immense political power derail our economic and politcal gravy train. Don't allow it cry the deniers ... as such a potent and immediately workable soluton would prove that there really was a problem by solving it.

Read more about restoring the SEAS and TREES at www.planktos-science.com

Russ of CA 8:11PM May 05, 2009

The trouble with the term 'client change' is the effort by many to 'combine global warming' and 'man-made'. It's an effort to by-pass any further discussion on what drives global warming and undercut the public's right to know and understand the facts and evidence.

For the past 20 years I believed global warming was caused by CO2. Now, after many months of research, I'm not so sure. It's looking more and more to be a natural phenomenon to me. My interest in the subject is great so I launched www.energyplanusa.com where I take an objective look at global warming and energy policy. I've waded through the wellspring of global warming theory, the United Nation's IPCC reports, and conclude they lack the 'smoking gun' that proves global warming is man-made. Moreover, I've come to realize that man-made global warming theory cherry picks facts and ignores contradictory evidence from reliable studies.

I'm dismayed that my own party, the Democrats, the thinkers, have turned a scientific issue into religious zealotry where faith trumps facts. I'm also dismayed that the American press seems content with publishing hearsay, without backing up conclusions and presumptions with facts and evidence. Please, help me get at the truth. If anyone can provide the CO2 smoking gun, I'd be greatly indebted.

Rmoen of NV 12:20PM May 05, 2009

I'm happy to go with whichever term resonates most with the most people. It's good to see this research. We need more of it.

Christine Esposito of IL 7:25PM May 04, 2009

Fresh Greens

Maura Judkis is a producer at U.S. News. She writes about the green movement and looks for ways to be an ecofriendly consumer without breaking the bank. Send her your green tips.

advertisement

advertisement