How deeply do you think about the words you use?
Yes, of course, we all think about our words.
We want to make ourselves understood, we want to disagree, we want to encourage, we want to make people laugh, we want to critique but not offend….It’s an endless list.
But when we work for a cause, we have to go beyond our own motivations and think about the people we’re trying to reach.
Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland has a wonderful piece about why the fossil fuel industry’s well-funded propaganda machine continues to cast doubt on climate change successfully, even after scientists have agreed: It’s real and humans are causing it.
He puts some of the responsibility on climate activists, who “have not been communicating the threat loudly enough or in the right way.”
He cites a new book by Jeff Goodell, The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet.
Goodell takes a hard look at the language climate activists commonly use.
Take the term “global warming.”
Goodell writes that the term “sounds gentle and soothing, as if the most notable impact of burning fossil fuels will be better beach weather.”
The term “climate change” isn’t much better.
It’s vague, as though it will happen in the future. And, since change can be negative or positive, it leaves open the possibility that climate change will be a good thing.
Then there are all the technical terms.
Net zero, carbon footprint, greenhouse gases, 1.5C, food security, even climate justice (you mean there are courts that handle climate issues?).
Those of us working on worthy issues must turn our attention outward and choose our words more thoughtfully.
Whatever the issue, we must ask ourselves:
Does this word have multiple connotations? (For instance, hot can apply to weather or it can mean sexy, popular, the latest thing.)
How technical is it?
Do people use it in conversation?
Does it instantly create a word picture in the reader’s mind?
We must never forget whom we’re writing for, who we’re trying to reach.
As always, thanks for reading!
