The language of a crisis
Language matters.
A freedom fighter - or an insurgent? A patriot - or a rioter? A global pandemic - or a little flu? Perhaps, if we’d experienced a year of physical distancing, it would have been a little easier to bear than social distancing.
The idea that we need to change the language of the climate crisis is nothing new. In 2019, the Guardian updated its style guide: no more will you read about global warming (too passive) but instead global heating. Biodiversity has been replaced with wildlife (more accessible) and climate sceptics have been replaced with climate change deniers.
Sometimes our language is just too passive for the scale of what is happening. Sometimes we are so fatigued, or so familiar with a word, that it’s meaning has been lost.
‘Fossil fuels’ should be a shocking phrase. Imagine digging up something that has taken millions of years to form and has been stored in the ground for a few million more; to use it to create some plastic tat on the front of a child’s magazine, that might be used for a few minutes before it breaks or is tossed aside. But the impact of using fuel that’s made from fossils has been lost.
When we use language, we often use it unthinkingly. But business owners, leaders and people who care have a unique role to play. Our choice of language can influence others. It can change perceptions. It is mimicked and replicated - on social media, in everyday life, in our children’s classrooms and beyond.
We can all be change makers - simply by altering our language.
Climate change vs climate emergency/crisis
When talking about what’s needed to avert a climate catastrophe, the UN uses words like “urgent”, “unprecedented” “far-reaching” and “rapid”.
This is the language of an emergency; of a crisis.
“Change’ is too small a word for the magnitude of what is happening.
Global warming vs global heating/over-heating
The Guardian has opted for global heating because global warming lacks urgency or severity - most of us have heard someone talk about how a bit of ‘warming’ wouldn’t be so bad.
There is an argument that even ‘heating’ is understated. Perhaps ‘over-heating’ would be more accurate.
Single use vs disposable
We all know about the issues with ‘disposable’ coffee cups and straws. But when we call them out for what they are - single use - the reality is harder to ignore. No longer are these items conveniently disposable; instead they are wasteful. It’s not just about plastics. It’s about highlighting throwaway culture. It’s about anything that’s designed to be used once: single use face masks, single use nappies, single use menstrual products, single use shopping bags (regardless of their material) or even single use kitchen towel.
Food waste versus food emissions/pollution
We’ve become a little bit weary about food waste. It seems too huge a problem, and the role of the supermarkets means that it feels like one that we have little control over. At an individual level, none of us really want to confront that pathetic courgette that’s quietly shrivelling at the back of the fridge.
Yet food waste really, really matters. About one third of global emissions are related to food. About ten percent of carbon emissions are linked to unconsumed produce. Growing food needs pesticides and transport, irrigation and disposal.
That is a lot of unnecessary emissions, and a lot of unneeded pollution. But after years of campaigns and awareness… not much has changed. We’re as apathetic as ever, and the waste mountain isn’t getting smaller.
So it’s time to use language to give ourselves a kick up the butt.
Bin versus landfill/incineration
In the words of Annie Lennox: “There is no away”.
It’s easy to chuck something in the bin.
Asking your children to put their discarded toys in landfill? Not so easy.
When we start talking about our own waste in terms of where it is going, we become much more aware of our choices. Adopt a three bin system: compost, recycling and landfill, and watch your habits change overnight.
Photo via Patrick Hendry via Unsplash
Clean and dirty energy
There are lots of ways to describe our energy sources: green, renewable, non-renewable, fossil fuels and so on. There’s an argument for keeping it simple and clear: it’s pretty hard to justify dirty (or polluting) fuel over clean fuel. An exception is cars - instead of EVs and ICE (electric vehicles and internal combustion engines) people often stop in their tracks to hear their car described as ‘fossil fuelled’.
Emissions vs pollution
Barack Obama apparently made a point of using ‘carbon pollution’ instead of ‘carbon emissions’, because it is more accessible. Perhaps ‘air pollution’ - or even ‘polluted air’ - is easier.
Fast fashion
The term fast fashion has its benefits - it’s shorthand for a host of problematic practices and behaviours. But, perhaps, that makes it too vague - perhaps it simply doesn’t say enough.
Should we forget the shorthand and say it like it is - confronting the issues head on? Naming the illegal and morally foul working conditions? Describing these items as clothes that pollute; and being explicit about the waste?
Deforestation
Deforestation is a classic of the ‘passive’ genre - up there with climate ‘change’ instead of ‘crisis’. Forest destruction or mass clearance perhaps more appropriate. Deforestation just happens; destruction sounds much more like ecocide. Which brings us neatly to…
...Ecocide
Ecocide is the “destruction of the natural environment of an area, or very great damage to it”. It’s also a big, emotive word. Ecocide is, arguably, too fierce for some to handle - the worry being that it alienates those who consider themselves to be moderate. Those in the middle ground may see something as emotive as a comparison to genocide as the language of ‘activists’ and ‘radicals’.
And yet, it is a word that is to be enshrined in French law, surely a sign that it is ready for the mainstream. Perhaps - used ‘moderately’ - ecocide is next big thing in terms of how our language influences action.
What have I missed? Are there any terms that you use, or loathe? Let me know, in time for the next update of this article.