When it comes to the public's reaction to an issue, we all know the term for an issue is critical. Bush showed us that with his policies of "Healthy Forests" and "Clear Skies." From the moment either of those pieces of legislation got their name, people's reactions to them were a foregone conclusion. How many people would be willing to vote or demonstrate against bills with names like those?
So let's face it. Tthe term for what we're doing to the planet's climate really needs a makeover. It used to be called the "Greenhouse Effect" but that name went out of favor when it became obvious through market research that laypeople weren't really sure what it meant. It gave no vivid image aside from that of healthy growing plants and a lot of glass. Not exactly accurate or good at motivating people to try to stop it.
These days, environmentalists prefer the label, "Global Warming," because it gets a much stronger emotional reaction from the general public than any other name. Anyone hearing the term Global Warming understands it's affecting the whole planet and it's probably bad. You imagine heat waves, forest fires and ecological systems in distress. It fills you with dread in the gut and you want to stop it.
However the scientists think Global Warming isn't accurate enough because some places on the Earth might actually cool down even as the planet overall warms up. Being scientists they prefer accuracy to vividness (being a writer, I have the opposite weakness).
Thus they bandy about the term "Climate Change." Yes, this term might be scientifically accurate but it sucks in terms of conveying much information about what it would mean for us here on Planet Earth. I think these scientists can do better with their label. After all they are the ones who have been doing such a stellar job on finding out how much of a whopping big euphemism "Change" is for what is starting to happen to the climate.
So I want to suggest two possible new terms. Out in the Pacific Northwest, that land of the eco-savvy, a new term is becoming popular: "Climate Disruption." I'm hoping scientists won't have a problem with the term, because surely what their results are pointing to is disruption of the comparively stable climate we've known for the last 10,000 years. I believe most laypeople hearing the term would immediately cotton onto the fact that this isn't a good thing. Each time they heard the term they would feel in their guts this is something they want to avoid.
The second term I'd like to suggest is Climate Instability. This seems like it is both accurate and dread-creating.
What I'm wondering is what are your thoughts on the terms. What images do they give you? Does either motivate you to get out on the street and start demonstrating? What do you think would work on your neighbors?
Crossposted at TruthandProgress.com