Rumors are flying that a forthcoming environmental survey/research piece on language will recommend that we move away from the terms “global warming” AND “climate change” and embrace some new catchphrase like “our deteriorating atmosphere.” The New York Times summarizes the researchers’ views on “global warming” as follows:
The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.
From their website, EcoAmerica seems like a credible outfit. And I’m an open-minded guy. But I’ll need a lot of convincing before I would endorse ditching the term “global warming” in favor of some new phrase. Here’s why:
First, Google Trends leaves little doubt that “global warming” is the term that everyday citizens are more likely to have on the tip of their tongue. There have consistently been way more Google searches for “global warming” than “climate change” as far back as the data trail goes. Although the issue has lost some steam since the Inconvenient Truth heyday, it’s trending back up since the start of this year. For kicks, I threw in “our deteriorating atmosphere,” turning up absolutely nada.
Second, that bit about the “shaggy haired liberals” doesn’t phase me a bit. Some “people” don’t like you or what you stand for. They are eager to concoct some kind of objection to what you want, and will go out of your way to find reasons to be nasty to and about you.
So what? There’s actually not that many of them, and trying to win them over is a big giant waste of time.
The Water Words That Work method is about motivating those who pay lip-service to our cause — but don’t actually do much. There’s a LOT of people like that out there. And at least according to the environmental surveys and focus groups in my collection, those people think that “global warming” is concrete and pretty scary and “climate change” sounds rather abstract.
So EcoAmerica — let’s see what you got! Looking forward to reading your report directly — instead of as summarized by the New York Times.
Thanks A.P and K.H!
Subscribe via RSS
Fan Our Facebook Page
Connect on LinkedIn
Seems like we are solving all our problems by just changing how we describe them.
When it comes to motivating the public to change their behavior, it is all about changing our language, identifying the appropriate messenger (typically not the shaggy haired enviro), and figuring out the best pathway. I too am eager to see the research, because global warming and climate change are recognizable and people have a general idea about what they means. Furthermore, with greater frequency folks are begining to understand what is causing it. I would be hard pressed to change a phrase that that registers with people, to some new fangled phrase that seems like it is going back to the same old scare tactics, that we know do not work.
I’ve generally used “climate change” and not “global warming” because here in WI, we don’t seem to be seeing hotter days. “Global warming” makes people think of scorching hot days but over the last decade, the number of 90+ degree days has been down in our part of the country. Our nighttime temps haven’t been falling as low so we’re seeing temperature range compression. So to me, “global warming” brings out the skepticism in people more than climate change which sounds broad (or abstract?).
I see no inconsistency. You are aiming at “people who pay lip service to our cause but don’t do much”. EcoAmerica is apparently telling us how to address voters who have yet to even pay lip service. Congressmen must deal with that larger public.
I don’t mean to beat a dead horse here, but the phrase they are proposing, “our deteriorating atmosphere” is a bit foxnewsish (fear, fear, fear) to me, and the word atmosphere is a scientific word that probably would be defined in about 10 different ways if you asked the public. Also, in terms of the audience, we need about 30-40% of the public to really change their behavior, and the folks most likely to do that are the “lip service folks.” Since this audience is familiar with the phrases being used, the challenge is to relate those terms to their personally held values. For example describing how climate change/global warming will change their quality of life for themselves or their children, will be far more successfull then trying to convince them that they should be worried about a deteriorating atmoshphere – which sort of sounds like something NASA should be worried about.
I’ve also heard people say that “climate change” sounds wishy-washy and “global warming” can sound fairly benign, especially to people in cold climates. They advocate something more like “global climate disruption.” I can see their point, but I also agree with Eric about the value of sticking with a phrase that is already well known.