Why words matter when talking climate change
A look at the semantics of global warming
When the American Meteorological Society (AMS) met in January, its members not only contemplated weather patterns, but also thought long and hard about language. The result of their linguistic discussions was surprising: The expression “climate change” should be put on the chopping block.
“Leading climate scientists and meteorologists,” Politico reported, are “avoiding the phrase ‘climate change,’ so loaded with partisan connotations as it is.” The consensus within AMS was to “stop talking about who or what is most responsible. And focus instead on what is happening and how unusual it is.”
Semantics debates on hot-button issues are nothing new, but history tells us that planting your flag on the term you want to represent your cause, and sticking to it, is the right approach.
Consider the culture wars over abortion. In the 1960s, those opposing abortion rights first branded themselves as “pro-life,” a label that is part of the common lexicon to this day. “It was a marketing masterstroke,” explained one journalist. “The success of the label is largely due to its ability to frame the issue not as standing against something (a woman’s choice) but in favor of it (life).”
Those on the other side of the issue, who later adopted the moniker “pro-choice,” have spent years trying to reclassify the pro-life movement as “anti-abortion.” While that expression has gained traction, “pro-life” remains so prevalent that the New York Times ran an op-ed piece in January with the headline: “I Am Pro-Life. Don’t Call Me Anti-Abortion,” with the subhead, “That kind of language allows critics to dismiss me and fellow pro-lifers as single-issue obsessives.”
Those on the front lines fighting climate change must learn from that battle and make sure to take firm control of the narrative. So far, environmentalists haven’t done a good enough job. After all, this isn’t the first time climate experts have shifted their nomenclature.
About a half-century ago, scientists opted for the wonky descriptor “inadvertent climate modification.” By 1975, a geochemist named Wallace Broecker figured that something more jarring was necessary to get people’s attention, so when he wrote an article on this threat, he chose the title, “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”
“Global warming” became “the dominant popular term” by 1988, according to NASA. That year, one of its scientists testified before Congress that “global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between greenhouse effect and the observed warming.”
This new label, which invoked a future of spiraling temperatures, offered a greater imperative for action. That said, global warming became too easy a target for climate deniers on a cold day, as some people struggled to differentiate between climate and weather. To quote President Donald Trump during January’s polar vortex: “In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees … What the hell is going on with Global Warming? Please come back fast, we need you!”
With the phrase “global warming” serving as a lightning rod, climate change, a label that has existed since at least the mid-1960s, ultimately took over as go-to language. To be fair, even though it might not be as impactful, the broader expression “global climate change,” is more accurate, NASA says, because, along with higher average temperatures, other systemic shifts such as lower precipitation and rising sea levels are occurring as well.
But now, some meteorologists consider even that terminology too controversial. They argue that the strategy should be to show the negative effects of global warming without using the words “climate change.” Fear may very well be driving this decision. While the number of people who don’t believe in climate change is shrinking, broadcasters worry about alienating even a minority of viewers.
“I think a lot of the broadcasters were concerned that there was such a political divide within the population and if they were very vocal of any aspect of climate change some subset of their audience would not view them with a level of trust,” said Keith Seitter, a meteorologist and AMS’ executive director.
But to kowtow to that tiny faction undercuts the value of being specific when confronting the menace that some are now saying should not be named.
Timothy Morton, an environmental philosopher and professor at Rice University, recognizes the hurdles in branding something as potentially catastrophic as climate change. He describes the impact of global warming as a “hyperobject.” He uses this term to define “all kinds of things that you can study and think about and compute, but that are not so easy to see directly.” To Morton, climate change is so big that the average person has great difficulty conceptualizing it.
But, for these hyperobject instances, Morton argues that a singular phrase is essential for focusing people’s minds. It “gives us a single word to describe something on the tips of our tongues,” he wrote. “It’s very difficult to talk about something you cannot see or touch, yet we are obliged to do so, since global warming affects us all.”
For the record, if Morton had a vote, he’d return to “global warming” as the descriptor. “I refuse to call it ‘climate change,’” he wrote. “The globe is literally warming because of greenhouse gases.”
Whatever the phrase, it should be etched in stone and those considering otherwise should think again. It’s certainly true that showing effects is an essential part in pushing for climate action. The powerful and deadly hurricanes and wildfires over the last couple of years likely opened many eyes to the severity of climate change. But that doesn’t mean we should shy away from naming the problem, especially one of this magnitude.
Alas, whether it’s global warming or climate change, a handy on-point phrase is something you may not see on your daily forecasts the next time you flip on the television.
