Want to Fix the Climate Change? Start With the Words You Choose.

"Atmosphere cancer."

If New York Times writer Andrew Revkin had his way, this is how people would describe our changing climate.

Why? Like many enviros, Revkin understands progress won't come unless we successfully sell climate change—and language is key to the hard sell.

Last year, John P. Holdren, the head of Harvard’s center on science and technology policy, told a science panel that climate change was "hardly a transformation one would describe with a gentle word like warming." Dr. James Lovelock has suggested the more aggressive "global heating," while psychiatrist Steven Moffic recommended "global boiling" in a New York Times Magazine letter last week.

In addition to the forcefulness of language, precision is also important. This became evident during the recent snowpocalypse hullabaloo, when denialists were able to successfully pitch their claim that "If it's cold, there can be no global warming." Though patently false, the argument worked because of its linguistic shrewdness.

In fact, "global warming" as a phrase does not account for oscillating climate shifts, and implies a false connection to weather—so it was very easy for naysayers to exploit the disparity. That is why organizations like NASA have suggested scrapping "global warming" for the more scientifically accurate "climate change." (Note that if denialists had used "climate change" in their claims, that linguistically would have supported the existence of extreme snowy weather).

Specific provisions associated with climate change could also benefit from linguistic mindfulness. Last year, the environmental non-profit ecoAmerica suggested the confusing "cap and trade" be replaced with "cap and cash back" or "pollution reduction refund." Conversely, Republicans did a lot of damage to cap and trade when they dubbed it an "energy tax" during the climate bill debates.

Finally, there's the issue of linguistic association. EcoAmerica conducted a poll last year that found "global warming" is often associated with "shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes." Their solution? Avoid the loaded phrase altogether, and instead talk about "our deteriorating atmosphere" and "moving away from the dirty fuels of the past."

At this point in the game, it's probably too late to expect a completely new phrase to dominate the rhetoric, or for people to give up on their ingrained terminology. But it's important to remember that real change has never happened without careful, persuasive language behind it.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons