Word matters : from Climate change to climate crisis

Sigmund Freud, once stated, that words and magic were in the beginning the same thing. While there is a certain sense of the fantastic about Freud’s statement, the fact that he is considered to have laid the foundation stones of the pantheon of modern psychology cannot be denied. Effectively, his words, or magic, cannot be taken lightly.

How we talk and write especially for scientific matters such as  about climate change is rapidly shifting as the ramifications of unchecked carbon pollution become ever clearer.

The Guardian announced it will start using more appropriately strong words that reflect the magnitude of the climate crisis. Instead of “climate change,” which sounds passive and gentle, staff writers will now use the terms “climate crisis” and “climate emergency”.

Recent reports about the urgency of reducing carbon emissions and the loss of biodiversity also helped motivate the change to take a stronger stance on the climate crisis. The Guardian will also use “wildlife” instead of “biodiversity” and “fish populations” instead of “fish stock.” The Guardian has also decided to discontinue the misleading use and recognition of “climate skeptics” who will now be called “climate science deniers.” A skeptic is “a seeker of truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions.” However, in today’s climate skeptics can more accurately be described as those who deny overwhelming scientific evidence. Writers at the BBC have also been advised to give less airtime to climate science deniers, a position which is no longer widely accepted as an alternative and balanced side to climate debates.

The outlet is a leading voice on climate coverage, meaning the move is more than symbolic. The new language could have lasting impacts on readers and how they perceive climate change, and inspire others to make similar shifts in how they talk about climate change. And with a million species at risk of extinction and a decade of rising carbon emissions turning up the broiler on the planet, describing our situation as “crisis” feels inspired.

“Scientists, the media, and policymakers must, of course, distinguish when we’re talking about the fact of what’s happening (‘climate change’) from the opinion about how bad it is (‘climate crisis’),” said Peter Gleick, a climate scientist who co-founded the Pacific Institute. “Perhaps that’s a minor quibble, but when I speak in public, I try hard to present the ‘facts’ about climate change and then make clear those facts inform my opinion about how bad the problem is, and will be (we face a ‘climate crisis’).”