The language of global warming
Posted in: Burning issues by Paul Allen , November 12, 2008 – 11:13 am
How susceptible are you to spin? Earlier this year, the New York Times reported on a book called Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein.
The authors argue that some new creative thinking on the part of marketers is increasingly affecting the way we behave. Salespeople - or “choice architects” as the New Yorkers like to call them - increasingly believe that the best way to get us to make choices is to trick us into thinking we’re making them all by ourselves. This is called a “nudge”.
One example could be the rows of chocolate bars in the queuing area around a supermarket checkout. It isn’t a cut-price promotion screaming for your attention – this isn’t about being pushed into a purchase. Instead, it’s a simple, albeit carefully orchestrated, presentation where you retain the freedom to buy or not. And the tactic appears to work.
When it comes to the environment, there are some interesting parallels in the way we discuss the big issues. Certainly, there are indications that shocking people with alarming statistics and reports about climate change is not always very effective.
Equally, telling people what to do – often in form of “top 10 things you can do to be green” – can be counterproductive. Many people are understandably turned off by these demands because they want the control over their decisions. The Nudge authors would argue that we shouldn’t tell people to make their homes more energy efficient, but get them to think it (or think they’ve thought it) first.
That’s a big challenge for the green media and policy makers. One way to meet it could lie in their choice of language. One trend, which I’ve heard from several people in the last few months, is a move away from mentioning “carbon emissions”. It seems that cold, scientific and often hard-to-conceive terms (can you picture a tonne of carbon?) actually turn us off. And that this affects our behaviour.
The increasingly popular alternative for carbon emissions is “environmental pollution”. These two words are easy to understand, highly emotive and very visual. The idea is that people will react much more positively to stopping a kind of pollution than an emission.
As a side note, I’ve often wondered if the scale of global warming puts many people off the whole subject. When the media talks about “saving the planet” (BBC Green may have to hold its hands up here), what is it really asking people to do?
The media’s choice of language here challenges people to do something that seems impossible - surely it would be better to focus on something that we can actually conceive. Besides, these cries of “saving the planet” are not strictly accurate - the planet will be fine; it’s us humans that won’t be.
Perhaps if environmentalists use more realistic and manageable language to communicate their messages, people might begin feel as though they can make the right decisions. Then maybe we could really kick-start a green revolution.
Comments
“The increasingly popular alternative for carbon emissions is “environmental pollution”. [...] realistic and manageable language to communicate their message, people might begin feel as though they can make the decisions. Then maybe we could really kick-start a green revolution.”
Oh, okay, now I understand: this ‘nudge’ thing is about lying.
After all, by ‘carbon’ one presumes you mean ‘carbon dioxide’ (not simply the atom itself). And ‘carbon dioxide’ is not a pollutant, it is a colorless gas that is part of the life cycle, breathed by humans, and used by plant life. So by advocating calling it that for the sake of using language that is ‘manageable’ for the sake of starting a ‘revolution’, you are advocating lying.
I get it now. Thanks,
Flag as inappropriateSonic Charmer, Your use of dots to tie those lines together is a little creative.
I’m not saying that “carbon emissions” and “environmental pollution” are the same thing. I am instead reporting on a marketing trend that could affect the way we talk about global warming.
But you raise an interesting question. Can the ends ever justify the means? Is it worth using an expression that could provoke a much greater response from people (e.g. “environmental pollution”) even if it’s not strictly accurate?
Note, this is a question. No need to accuse me of advocating lying (again).
Flag as inappropriateI find it very hypocritical of this government to bang the environmental drum while proposing to build a third runway at Heathrow and possibly another at Stansted. Aircraft emissions are the fastest rising source of CO2.
We strive very hard to reduce our carbon footprint but what is the point if the government is so keen to fill the skies with polluting planes.
If the government wants to promote big building projects to help employment it would do better to concentrate on improving supplies and storage of energy. It makes no sense and is a thoroughly unattractive idea for us to freeze in the dark for the sake of a weekend drinking spree in Prague.
Flag as inappropriateActually, Sonic Charmer does a great job with misdirection. One could call it lying with facts.
Of course carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas, one that plays a very important role in life on Earth.
But carbon dioxide becomes an environmental pollutant when our activities put such huge quantities of it into the environment that the environment is altered for the worse.
In burning fossil fuels, we have put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than natural systems like oceans and forests can absorb. So the concentration of this greenhouse gas has increased in the atmosphere to the point that the climate has de-stabilized. As a result, we’re facing enormous disruption of our infrastructure, our food supply, and to the diversity of life on Earth, and risks to our health and welfare.
- Emily Gertz, Journalist
Flag as inappropriateEditor, globalwarming.change.org
Almost never killed a fly
Flag as inappropriate