Why I titled my book <em>Hell and High Water</em> | Gristmill: The environmental news blog

Why I titled my book Hell and High Water

'Climate change' and 'global warming' are not scary-enough terms

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 12:12 PM on 20 Feb 2008

Read more about: messaging | climate | climate change impacts

Andy Revkin of the NYT has a good blog post on one of the main problems with climate messaging by scientists, environmentalists, and the like. In short, it sucks!

One problem is the name "global warming" or "climate change." It sounds like a vacation, not a crisis.

Indeed, one of the main reasons I titled my book Hell and High Water is that I thought it was a better term -- more accurate of what is to come if we don't act, more descriptive, more visceral -- and I hoped (faintly) it might become more widely used. But other than being projected onto the Washington Monument by Greenpeace, nada!

Names do matter. As conservative message-meister Frank Luntz wrote a few years ago in an infamous memo, that explains precisely how a politician can sound as if he or she cares about global warming but doesn't actually want to do anything about it:

"Climate change" is less frightening than global warming. As one focus group participant noted, climate change "sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale." While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

So you should probably use "global warming," but probably not waste a lot of effort trying to rename something that is deeply embedded in both scientific and popular usage. Also, I don't think the name is the main problem. Revkin cites a marketing expert who said:

If the problem were called "Atmosphere cancer" or "Pollution death" the entire conversation would be framed in a different way.

But if that were true, how did the incredibly unsexy and unscary name "ozone depletion" drive international action to proatively ban chlorofluorocarbons, even winning the support of Ronald Reagan, nobody's idea of an environmentalist? The answer is that "ozone depletion" actually leads directly to cancer and not in the distant future (and Reagan had had skin cancer).

Global warming was always going to be a tough sell, given its long time scale and mostly indirect impacts on human health, even without the incredibly effective disinformation campaign that has been waged for the past decade. Words do matter, though, and I will be publishing a detailed article later in the week that will delve into one of the biggest language mistakes I think scientists and climate activists have made.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: Why I titled my book Hell and High Water
4 Comments | Post a Comment

Terms

names definitely matter. As Bill S. said, "The name's the thing." If the name sounds vaguely friendly, it's hard to put a realistic image to it.

I've been giving presentations lately where I have had good results with the terms "climate crisis," "global heating," and "climate destabilization." Crisis gets at the politics, heating is what is driving the destabilization, and that's what drives the negative consequences.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 12:43 PM on 20 Feb 2008

Global climate disaster

GHG related global climate disaster, that's too long. Climate crisis, too mild.

Mess-o-climat-opotamia. Too Iraqy.

Droughty, stormy, dangerous emergency (with sirens in the background). Everytime Barack mentioned it in a speech, pausing on each important turn of the phrase as he does, singing out with breath control of a balladeer, a siren would wail far off. Hehey, now that's dramatic.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 12:56 PM on 20 Feb 2008

Corps Approved Title

Several legal actions against the Army Corps of Engineers flood control projects in Eastern Kentucky. More on the way!

It seems coal stripping on the watershed including the MTR type strip mining is part of the corps mission on flood control projects in East Ky. I know is an oxymoron and coal strip mining is not synonymous with flood control but the corps seems to encourage it.

It seems in Pike County Ky. we are destined to build and rebuild in 20 to 30 year blocks of time only to see the works of our hands get flushed down the Big Sandy River.

We do appreciate the millions of dollars in FEMA funds the federal tax payers give us for each event.

We also appreciate the millions of dollars it took to construct the Fishtrap Dam in Pike County Ky. and maintain it since its construction in 1968.

It seems the Corps knows how to construct a flood control project, just don't know enough about flood control to figure out you're not supposed to strip off the watershed after you build it.

Its contagious, the Ky. Fish & Wildlife has declared it a game reserve, that's stupid I know but stripping a game reserve pales in comparison to the ignorance of stripping a flood control project. Coal strip jobs just aren't conducive to either if had asked anyone floating by in their house in the great 77 flood.

Hey! but nowhere is it written that bloated, wastefull incompetent bureaucracy's are supposed to operate under common sense guidelines.

Rest assured we will get the coal corporation stripping stopped on the Fishtrap Dam corps property, COME HELL OR HIGH WATER.

We have to because every community below that Dam knows what Hell & High Water looks like.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

by Pompey Road at 1:27 PM on 20 Feb 2008

Alarmist language reconsidered

Love your book Mr. Romm but I think the more you crank up the doom-and-gloom, the easier it is for conservative spinmeisters to peg you as just another Chicken Little. There was a great article about this kind of negative stereotyping on Rockridge Nation a while back: http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/09/06/as ...

Why not take the preferred conservative euphemism and reappropriate it? I can actually have a complete conversation with almost anyone if the topic is "climate change." But as soon as I mention "global warming," the eyes glaze over, the disaster fatigue sets in, and that mind is closed to me and my message.

Calling it world-hot-death-now makes me feel good and gives vent to my moral outrage. But I'm convinced that if I choose to yell, I'm only talking to myself and to others who believe as I do. I am also pushing my conservative acquaintances deeper into their own bizarre counter-stories, such as (actual quote) "global warming is caused by SUV-driving environmentalists."

There's a large group of well-meaning, intelligent people, open to new ideas in other areas of their lives, who when it comes to the environment are afraid, don't know what to do, and so do nothing. We need those people if we want to affect any kind of quick and lasting change. We can't afford to have them drifting off in the middle of the conversation feeling burned out and drained of the will to act.

I think it's possible to frame this topic in a more inclusive way without sacrificing any of the facts, impact, or urgency. How exactly to do that is a topic for another day.

Cheers,

Patrick

http://pkwrite.com

by patrickkelley at 12:14 AM on 21 Feb 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.