by You’ve probably heard phrases like “climate crisis,” “climate emergency” or “climate justice” more often recently as people try to get to grips with the urgent risks and consequences of climate change. The danger is real, but is the use of this language really persuasive?
It turns out that Americans are more aware of—and more concerned about—climate change and global warming than they are about climate crisis, climate emergency or climate justice, according to a recent survey we conducted with a nationally representative sample of 5,137 Americans.
Furthermore, we found no evidence that the alternative terms increased people’s sense of urgency, willingness to support climate-friendly policies or willingness to act.
The common terms – climate change and global warming – did at least as well, and sometimes better, than climate crisis and climate emergency in terms of provoking concern, perceived urgency and willingness to act. Climate justice has always tended to be worse, in part because it was the least known. The responses were similar among Republicans, Democrats and independents.
Just keep it simple
In our work as research psychologists, we’ve explored how Americans respond to the ways in which climate change is communicated and we’ve discovered the need to use plain language.
For example, people we interviewed for a study published in 2021 felt that climate experts were talking over their heads on terms like “adaptation,” “mitigation,” “sustainability” and “carbon dioxide removal.” They wanted experts to use more common terms instead.
This prompted us to write a quick guide to climate jargon, published in The Conversation. The information is easier to understand by using everyday language, and is usually preferred by highly educated people.
However, experts often use complex jargon because it is familiar to them, and they may not realize that it is familiar to others.
How the terms came about
It is now common to talk about climate change and global warming as if they have the same meaning, but there are differences. Climate change refers to changes in the overall climate, while global warming specifically refers to a rise in temperature.
A historical review found that people in the past were less likely to associate the term climate change with the idea that humans are actively warming the planet than they were with the term global warming. Perhaps that is why the term global warming has become popular with the Democrats, and the popularity of the term climate change is credited to Frank Luntz, an adviser to the George W. Bush administration.
Past surveys found that Democrats tended to think of global warming as more serious than climate change, while Republicans thought climate change was more serious than global warming. But according to a recent review, these partisan differences have now faded, and a majority of Republicans and Democrats tend to be wary of both terms.
Alternative terms such as the climate crisis, climate emergency and climate justice have been used to emphasize other aspects of climate change and to try to raise concerns. In 2019, the British newspaper The Guardian changed the use of climate crisis and climate emergency because it wanted to convey urgency.
Activists use the term climate justice to highlight climate change as a human rights challenge: Low-income people around the world suffer the most from the effects of climate change, despite being least responsible for it .
Takeaway: Avoid overheated language
Currently, the terms climate crisis, climate emergency or climate justice are less well known and of less concern than climate change or global warming.
Even if these terms become more common, there is no guarantee that they will increase concern or inspire action. In fact, studies have suggested that phrases like climate crisis may make a comeback if people don’t agree.
Our advice: Don’t make the mistake of using overheated language. Just stick to common terms that people understand – use global warming when referring to temperature rise and climate change for overall changes in climate.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a non-profit, independent news organization that brings you reliable facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. Written by: Wändi Bruine de Bruin, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and Gale Sinatra, University of Southern California
Read more:
This study was funded by the University of Southern California’s Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies. Wändi Bruine de Bruin was also supported by a gift from the Golden Belt Community Foundation and receives funding from the Lloyd’s Register Foundation, in part to communicate climate change awareness around the world.
Gale Sinatra receives funding from the National Science Foundation.
