Decoding Climate Jargon: Navigating the Sea of Confusion
I recently had an intriguing conversation with my friend Ben, who was about to embark on a new role in the renewable energy sector.
As we discussed his upcoming role, I realised that I was using language that, while familiar to me, might have different meanings or interpretations for Ben. For example, a term like ‘decarbonisation’ appeared to cause confusion because it had various definitions.
Decarbonisation may often be used as a broad objective in climate action, aiming to reduce carbon and greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere. Deloitte, a prominent accounting firm, alternatively defines it as ‘the removal or reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the atmosphere.’ Additionally, the Oxford Dictionary explains it as ‘the process of replacing fossil fuels with fuel that is less harmful to the environment’.
So, which interpretation is correct?
Is it a goal or a strategy?
Is decarbonisation solely focused on carbon emissions or does it involve removing all greenhouse gases from the atmosphere?
Is it perhaps focused on the elimination of fossil fuels altogether?
While there may not be a definitive answer that universally applies, this ambiguity can often lead to confusion and miscommunication.
This got me thinking: if someone who was joining the climate industry faced confusion in understanding its language, wouldn’t those outside the sector be in a similar boat?
Yes.
Climate jargon can create a sense of disconnection.
When unfamiliar climate words and concepts are used, it can create a sense of confusion and undoubtedly this makes the general public feel excluded from the conversation. This can act as a barrier that discourages active participation in meaningful climate discussions and hinders informed actions.
In his book Drawdown, Paul Hawken suggests that the prevalence of specialised vocabulary, acronyms and lingo can be alienating and may contribute to their disconnection from the topic of climate change. This disconnect may result in a failure to recognise the urgency of the problem and an understanding of its personal relevance.
Consider the term ‘decarbonisation’ mentioned earlier. It can often be confusing because decarbonisation can refer to various approaches for reducing net carbon emissions. For example, if companies, such as those in oil and gas, claim they are decarbonising by simply purchasing carbon offsets (perhaps low quality ones) without actually reducing their direct emissions, can that be considered genuine decarbonisation? While climate experts may argue against this approach (if we use the definition of reducing fossil fuels), the general public may not be aware of this distinction if they are familiar with other definitions. This can erode confidence in the actions being portrayed and when you see this alongside the ASIC Greenwashing concerns you can understand there will be confusion.
Moreover, general terms familiar to the public can acquire different meanings in the scientific context. For example, the word ‘positive’ is typically associated with something good, while ‘negative’ is associated with something bad. However, in the climate space, a phrase like ‘negative emissions’ may appear to have negative connotations, but this actually refers to the removal of carbon from our atmosphere, which is a positive outcome. The presence of such a small discrepancy in meaning can understandably be frustrating for the general public.
Corporations can exploit climate jargon to divert attention.
Corporations often utilise climate jargon to their advantage, strategically creating the impression of expertise and commitment to addressing climate change. This tactic, known as ‘greenwashing’, allows companies to present themselves as environmentally responsible without actually actioning any significant sustainability changes in their business.
In particular, consumers may be particularly susceptible to the use of greenwashing by fashion and food brands who promote eco-friendly or sustainable practices that may be exaggerated or misleading. A recent example involves a fast-fashion brand named Shein which faced criticism for paying influencers to promote the company as eco-friendly and socially responsible. Initially, followers, especially Gen-Z and Millennials, may perceive this messaging and mistakenly believe that the brand is genuinely embracing sustainable practices. However, it was later revealed that these claims masked exploitative manufacturing practices and diverted attention from genuine sustainability efforts.
Terms like “carbon-neutral” or “net-zero” may also be used to typically signify sustainability ambitions without demonstrating tangible actions or producing concrete results. While both of these terms imply achieving a balance between greenhouse gas emissions produced and removed from the atmosphere, consumers can often find themselves confused about which companies are genuinely reducing emissions and taking substantive steps towards sustainability versus those merely making aspirational statements.
Militaristic language can also be discouraging.
Climate change is also commonly wrapped around militaristic language such as ‘the war on climate change’ or ‘the fight against global warming’. While these phrases are intended to highlight the severity of the issue, their doom-and-gloom nature can discourage individuals from understanding or actively engaging in discussions. In effect, it diminishes the sense of human agency by creating the impression that nothing can be done to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. By externalising climate change and casting it as a so-called villain, it further diminishes our motivation and ability as individuals to take action by placing too much reliance on ‘others’.
Moreover, this language may also be used to prioritise immediate actions that yield visible and immediate results, rather than comprehensive systemic changes necessary for long-term sustainability. A recent example of this can be observed in the discourse surrounding Australia’s reliance on fossil fuels, where the politicisation and media framing of the ‘climate wars’ have caused confusion regarding the most effective solution. In this case, it could be argued that employing such militaristic language may have shifted the focus towards reactive measures (e.g. allowing large oil and gas corporations to excessively rely on carbon offsets while still effectively constructing new fossil fuel-based plants). This may perpetuate the illusion of significant decarbonisation without addressing the fundamental need to reduce our dependence on oil and gas and directly reduce emissions.
So, what can we do to unravel this confusion?
We need to bridge the language gap.
To effectively engage the general public, I believe it is crucial that we aim to simplify climate concepts and communicate using relatable language that connects with people’s everyday lives.
Here are several ideas which can help.
If you are someone trying to navigate climate jargon and understand the language, consider the following steps:
1. Don’t take things at face value and seek clarification
When encountering unfamiliar climate terms or concepts, don’t hesitate to ask for clarification. Make sure to confirm the specific definition being used by the person or source. Reach out to experts, educators, or individuals knowledgeable in the field. Engaging in dialogue and seeking explanations will help demystify complex ideas and improve your understanding. Even learning from YouTube is a good way to start.
2. Seek reliable sources
With the abundance of information available, it is important to rely on reliable sources for accurate and up-to-date information on climate change. Look for reputable scientific organisations, environmental NGOs, and trustworthy news outlets that provide credible information. By accessing reliable sources, you can ensure that the information you receive is accurate and trustworthy. Consider reading books from renown climate scientists — a personal favourite of mine: The Big Switch by Saul Griffith.
3. Educate yourself
Take the initiative to educate yourself about climate change and related terminology. Read books, articles, and reports that provide clear explanations of climate concepts. Online resources such as climate change websites, educational platforms, and scientific journals can also provide valuable insights. Websites like Good on You can help you understand the sustainability impact of the brands you purchase from, empowering you to make more informed choices.
If you are a startup striving to improve sustainability or working in the climate space, consider the following steps:
1. Write clear and accessible language
When communicating about sustainability efforts or climate initiatives, use language that is easily understood by a wide audience. Avoid excessive jargon or technical terms that may alienate or confuse people. Instead, focus on clear explanations and relatable examples to convey your message effectively. For instance, rather than using the term ‘climate mitigation’ in isolation, make sure you also explain it — ‘actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow down climate change.’
2. Be accountable and transparent in sustainability claims
If your startup is making sustainability claims or promoting eco-friendly practices, ensure transparency and accountability. Provide clear evidence and data to support your claims, and be transparent about your progress, challenges, and future goals. This fosters trust and credibility among consumers and stakeholders. A brand like Patagonia serves as a good example, as they have demonstrated a commitment to sustainability transparency and have been transparent with the public about how recent ownership changes align with their environmental values.
3. Collaborate for education and awareness
Recognise the importance of education and awareness in addressing climate change. Support initiatives that promote climate literacy and engage in educational programs or events. By partnering with organisations that share the commitment to tackling climate change, you can create a collective movement that amplifies your impact and encourages individuals to get involved.
Tying it all together
Thus, these ideas can help us form the groundwork for bridging the language gap and unravelling the confusion around the complexities of the climate. By demystifying jargon, promoting transparency, and fostering a sense of shared responsibility, we can empower individuals to take meaningful steps towards sustainability and better respond to climate change.
It’s time to break down the barriers created by complex language and make climate discussions accessible to everyone.
To quote a classic movie — (we’re) gonna need a bigger boat.
Hi I’m Andy, the Angel Network Manager of Ecotone Ventures, an Angel Network that connects the growing number of climate conscious investors to early stage ventures with climate solutions.
We’re looking to connect with early-stage climate-focused founders and investors who are interested in joining our climate angel network.
If this sounds like you, please connect with me on Linkedin.
