Some call it climate change, others prefer global warming. But does either name capture the seriousness of the problem? Robert Butler looks for alternatives ...
Scientists have come up with plenty of good phrases to frighten us. They did well with "ozone depletion", "acid rain" and "h5-n1". But when it comes to finding shorthand terms to express the full scariness of the predicament we now find ourselves in, the scientists have given us a couple of non-starters. Technically, there's a difference between "global warming" and "climate change". One is a subset of the other (global cooling, for instance, is also part of climate change). But for the general public, the terms have become interchangeable--and neither works.
The word "climate" has a cheerful, outdoorsy ring to it--people often move to a place because of the climate--and for many of us there's something positive, too, about "change". It has been the main theme of Barack Obama's campaign for the Democratic nomination. We all need change in our lives. Put it together with climate and the result can't be that terrible, can it?
The alternative is no better, because it doesn't sound any worse. "Global" has a modern, businesslike ring to it, and "warming" seems like a plus because not too many people like to get cold. Is this part of the problem? The marketing writer Seth Godin thinks so. The author of the bestselling "Purple Cow" (2003, about how ideas stand out from the crowd), Godin reckons the majority of the population has barely grasped the seriousness of the state we're in. "If the problem were called 'atmosphere cancer' or 'pollution death'," he has said, "the entire conversation would be framed in a different way."
Professor Tim Flannery, author of "The Weather Makers--The History and Future Impact of Climate Change" (2006), agrees. "If scientists were predicting the imminent return of the ice age," he writes, "I'm certain our response would be more robust. 'Global warming' creates an illusion of a comfortable, warm future that is deeply appealing, for we are an essentially tropical species that has spread into all the corners of the globe, and cold has long been our greatest enemy."
The thing we are talking about here didn't start out as "climate change". In the early 20th century, it was known as "climatic change". In 1975 Wallace Broecker, a scientist from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, wrote an influential paper for the journal Science entitled "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?".
The phrase "global warming" took off in June 1988, when Jim Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testified to Congress that he was "99% sure" that global warming was happening and that it was probably caused by humans. Which phrase, then, is more appropriate? The Environmental Protection Agency says that the balance is shifting towards "climate change".
This isn't just because alliteration, even of the partial variety, nearly always wins. "The phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use to 'global warming'," says the EPA, "because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures." It should be good news for the Republican consultant Frank Luntz. A master euphemist who prefers to call oil drilling "energy exploration", Luntz has argued that Republicans should use "climate change" instead of "global warming" because it sounds neutral and plays down any aspect of human involvement.
Others who feel that neither expression is up to the job are busy coining their own terms. James Lovelock, the author of "Gaia" (1979) and "The Revenge of Gaia" (2006), goes for "global heating" because it suggests the idea that someone is doing it. The scientist and environmentalist Amory Lovins calls it "global weirding". Prince Charles calls it "climate war". John P. Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard, wants "global climate disruption"; he feels that people have become anaesthetised to the other labels. The rabbi and activist Arthur Waskow calls it "global scorching".
The former vice-president Al Gore calls it "the climate crisis" or "the planetary emergency". The eco-website Grist offered "xtreme weather" and "climApocalypse", and for soccer moms it suggested "global property value destruction" (ok, this was on April 1st).
Out in the blogosphere, there are now enough synonyms for a full-page entry in Roget's Thesaurus: "global meltdown", "climate chaos", "climate disruption", "global fever", "thermageddon", "the warmacaust", "heat pollution", "climate destabilisation", "solar grilling" and "climate doomsday".
Whichever one you choose, the concept will always be a tough sell. The business author Tom Peters asks: "Why is this brand called the global warming catastrophe such a weak brand?" One reader answered, "You can't sell global warming--there's nothing to buy." The only time when there will be plenty on offer will be the day of the closing-down sale ("everything must go").
One option might be to call it what it actually is: "global mean temperature increase". No one likes mean. Mean is bad. No one likes a temperature--you only have one when you're ill. But it may be asking too much for a four-word term to replace a two-word one. Otherwise, the best suggestion I've come across is the German term Klimakatastrophe, which was chosen as Germany's word of the year in 2007. There's an expression that could keep you awake at night.
(Robert Butler is a theatre writer and a regular contributor to Intelligent Life magazine. His last piece was about environmental humour. He blogs about the arts and the environment at ashdenizen.blogspot.com)
