麻豆社

Interestingly, these two, common, competing phrases both appeared simultaneously in a scientific paper in 1975 – and we’ve been trying to work out which is best ever since.

People have tried to introduce new core language like climate chaos, dirty weather, and global weirding, none of which have managed to usurp the two original monikers. One communication specialist even came up with the phrase atmospheric cancer, which barely saw the light of day (thankfully).

The trouble with all these phrases, says George Marshall, is that they don’t adequately convey that this is something quite exceptional, and actually very dangerous. But it’s interesting to see that the language of climate crisis has really taken off.

The Guardian newspaper made an editorial decision that from now on they would refer to the climate crisis, and that appears to be gaining ground. Similarly, campaigners are also talking about climate emergency.

When you have an issue of unprecedented crisis, such that you’ve never had to experience before, putting together these compounds of existing words doesn’t really cut it, says George.

We’re failing to communicate that this is something new and exceptional.

The author believes that as we move through the process, we’re going to have to invent some completely new words and labels.

Just as carbon is a gas that loves to combine with other gases, it seems the word carbon is a word that loves to combine with other words. And it’s central to our dialogue around climate change (or should that be global warming?).

The university of Nottingham measured 35 different variants on carbon: carbon neutral, low-carbon lifestyles, and carbon footprint to name just three.

For a long time, President Obama was talking about carbon pollution, the idea being that some of the technical language around climate change was too hard to grasp and something more pithy might help.

The greenhouse effect

Unlike the phrase climate change, the greenhouse effect did come from a communications imperative. People wanted to find a way to easily explain how the world was warming up, and a greenhouse offered an effective metaphor.

The language around climate change has to do some serious heavy lifting.

We have no personal or shared experience to draw on about what climate change means, and so it’s asking language to do a lot.

Not only that, but we’re asking people to take action now to prevent something we’re anticipating will happen in the future – it can all feel quite abstract.

The language we use has to speak to a person’s values and resonate with them, says George. If it doesn’t, people will simply say, ‘I’ll deal with the problem when I see it.” But by then it will be too late.

We’re storytelling creatures who see the world through the medium of stories. There’s a clear narrative structure that appears in all cultures across the world: good versus evil, an ensuing struggle and, finally, resolution.

The trouble with climate change is that it doesn’t naturally lend itself to this structure. There is no good or bad guy – we are all the enemy. We are all the problem and we are all part of the solution.

We need to promote a narrative where we all come together and work collectively to achieve that happy ending. We have to find a way of creating compelling narratives that precipitate action, that make people feel a sense of shared purpose and identity. This is vital.

We can’t wait until people’s lives are directly affected because it will be too late.