Talking climate change
Artwork by Christelle Troost
Michal Gricuk explores the linguistics at the heart of environmental discussion.
Would you be surprised if I told you that examining the seemingly unassuming underbelly of the language of climate change reveals a network of manipulative structures and psychological and linguistic frameworks? Did you know that some climate-related expressions are notoriously liberal and others notoriously conservative? Did you know that the way we communicate climate change has an underbelly?
The two main players most of the recent debate has been around are “global warming” and “climate change”. These phrases are far from synonymous. Despite this, their modern usage has no regard for scientific definitions, rather subtle connotation, political affiliation, and many other implications that cast an even fainter shadow. From a scientific standpoint, “global warming” refers to a global rise in temperatures, and “climate change” to the changes which arise from said warming. Despite this they are still used interchangeably in political discourse, for instance in the USA where they have become the respective mantras of the two main political parties.
A memo sent out by pollster and pundit Frank Luntz to Republicans during the Bush administration is responsible for much of the polarisation of climate opinion still found today. Based on the findings of focus groups, Luntz urged Republicans to mind their wording when discussing climate issues, particularly emphasising the use of “climate change” over “global warming”. The justification was that frightening connotations might heighten political concern. Whether these inferences were true is now secondary all together. What matters is that these two phrases became parts of greater ideologies, ones that project all knowledge associated with climate science onto a particular phrase, whose job it is to draw attention to a subset of considerations at the expense of others.
This is referred to as “framing”: communicators use features of a message to evoke ideas and ways of thinking that audiences then use to interpret that message. For instance, let’s consider patient zero, “global warming” versus “climate change”. The former evokes associations of rising temperatures and human causation, whereas the latter connotes natural and holistic shifts in the climate, including those caused by global warming. For this reason the bulk of the scientific community and their supporters use “climate change”, which better encompasses the myriad of long-term changes taking place. Climate change deniers, of course, prefer “global warming”, which is usually used synonymously for “climate change” but should, in this case be treated as a misnomer. Scientific nomenclature aside, the use of either one of these phrases highlights certain predetermined aspects of climate science, resulting in a particularly charged phrase becoming the poster child of whole crusades for or against climate science.
Framing is also used in defining the scientific consensus surrounding climate change. For example, the statement “97 percent of scientists agree that global climate change is happening” could be rephrased as “3 percent of scientists disagree…”. Although the sentences are logically equivalent, their effects could not be more different. According to a 2011 study, respondents who perceived that a majority of scientists agree that global warming is real expressed greater certainty that it is really happening. This banal example underscores the significance of news outlets publishing balanced arguments in the name of sound journalism, and allows legislators to quote studies supporting their views whilst discarding the bulk of scientific literature.
Some frames reach beyond language’s basic symbolism and are just as important to understanding reactions to communications as linguistics itself. These factors transcend the logical analysis of words within sentences and appeal to the recipient on a different level. For instance, Pope Francis’s climate change encyclical (Laudato Si’) led the Western world into an era where people are more likely to consider climate change a moral or ethical issue. A 2015 study shows that even brief exposure to Pope Francis heightens moral belief surrounding climate change, which diverts our attention from linguistics to a broader concept of communication. This phenomenon even has its own name: the Francis effect.
If anything, this shows us just how complex communication mechanisms are, and how fine tuning and spin can be used so discreetly that it renders us completely insensitive to it. This study also raises many questions concerning causality. Human judgement draws on working memory, meaning that the order in which the information is consumed encourages or discourages support for the final point of interest. So, does the image of the Pope influence our perception of the environmental crisis? Or do personal belief and scientific consensus impact our image of the Pope or climate policy?
Keeping a keen eye on the future we see that recent change in public awareness is now making its mark, and this linguistic game, once the weapon of deniers, is played by the enforcers of climate reform. The manifesto from the Guardian calling for stronger language (think “climate crisis” or “climate catastrophe”), the BBC’s choice not to require balancing arguments from climate change deniers on panel discussions, and the bold, emotionally charged linguistics of the Extinction Rebellion movement all turn our attention to science. However, do not take my words for granted, for we are all part of this linguistic struggle over the state of our climate. My words, including those printed in this article, are just as full of insinuation and implication as information, but the extent of this is probably for a denier to say.