Besides using some of these words when communicating to other people, some of them feel so diluted now, when every company and their aunt are using them. Sustainability is so wrongly overused, it has lost all its meaning.
I’m a big believer in plain language but had never really stopped to think about how many sustainability related terms we use that few people really understand. Thanks for inspiring me to do better!
“the fact that they are formed from ancient organic matter is not really relevant…” except that it needs to be understood that human combustion of these fuels is rapidly undoing millions of years of ‘safe storage’ of these heat trapping gasses.
Thank you, lots of these words have been diluted or co-opted in some way and it makes it hard to communicate using these terms. I think about this a lot.
After almost 2 years working in a climate org in a comms role, I wasn't supported in thinking/communicating outside the box in this way and it was really frustrating, so I left. Ultimately people aren't going to be inspired to liberate themselves if we're using corporate-sounding sentences and keywords that have dubious meanings and affiliations.
thank you for this list and the alternatives. Please note that turning salt water into sweet (desalinating) is a process with extreme negative effects for the surrounding marine area. The highly saline refuse from the desalination plant harms or kills marine life.
So desalination is not something which only has positive effects. Indeed the negative ones are so harmful that they outweigh the positive, especially when the produced sweet water goes into swimming pools on dry islands.
That’s right. Don’t presume. Precise language is important and has a huge impact on communication. People are likely to bring their meanings to the words. Put a comma after the word to add further explanation with more meaning to follow. For example, demersal fish, those that feed on the bottom. This method of communication fosters a more inclusive conversation where participants are less likely to talk over each other and more likely to engage meaningfully.
Climate change, global warming, is wreaking havoc on our lives. Using both terms is more inclusive and enables people who know how we stopped global warming in the past to speak without having “the science” dogma explained. When vice president Dick Cheney directed scientists to publish papers and engage people in a debate about why ”global warming” should be called “climate change,” it was a strategic move. This redirected our attention to the Heavens (and resonated with biblical passages). "Climate change" encompasses a broader range of environmental transformations, redirecting the focus to the intricate and nearly chaotic workings of the Earth's climate.
The analogy of warming a cup of coffee demonstrates the clarity of knowledge by experience and the importance of appropriate actions and tools. As a hairdryer cannot effectively warm coffee and requires a hot plate, addressing environmental issues necessitates correct approaches.
Property owners may resist directives on land stewardship, preferring autonomy, but the destruction of nature through the loss of vegetation and soils and pollution cannot be ignored. The resulting environmental degradation exacerbates wealth disparities, with land barons, technology wizards, and energy magnates profiting at the expense of broader societal well-being.
In 1871, Verplanck Colvin, at age 23, did not mince words in his New York state report: “The immediate cause has been the chopping and burning off of vast tracks of forests in the wilderness.” Colvin’s warnings did not go unheeded. In response, New York State embarked on an ambitious project to acquire over 1000 square miles (681,000 acres) of Adirondack forests in 1885. This significant conservation effort ensured that the region's water resources continued to cycle and maintained the flow of barge traffic in the Erie Canal from Albany to Buffalo.
The success of this initiative underscores the well-understood critical role that forests play in environmental sustainability, global warming, climate change, and economic stability.
Therefore, choosing words carefully is about wielding the power of language to convey truth and foster understanding. By being precise and considerate in our communication, we can bridge divides, engage in meaningful discourse, and work towards solutions that benefit all.
Brilliant write up, thank you. I often think these words are used in sustainability/climate circles as shorthand. People working in it understand implicitly what these words mean. And the clearer alternatives are all (I think) more words, and it feels like people think using more words is a bad thing, or are scared of dumbing things down perhaps.
I think the successful pushing of the “woke brand” into the mainstream consciousness, and its growth to include anything that those of a certain political persuasion don’t like or support, including green principles, means this terminology is not only difficult to understand for every day people but also now tarnished.
That adds more weight to your argument to start taking your suggested approach.
One point is that the term “endless energy source” really depends on perspective, is the source the energy asset or the sun, wind or water, if perceived as the asset its not endless, as the asset itself depreciates and must eventually be replaced.
However this point in your article inspired me to think about how to describe a clean energy financing protocol I’m currently working on in a different way. I arrived at:
An open financial system powering endless energy - without emissions, and with care for our planet.
Or even further simplified:
A new way to fund endless energy - without emissions, and with care for our planet.
Great minds… we just published a similar piece but appreciate you filling in the whole glossary of nonsense language. Changing behaviors requires more compelling messages.
I really agree with this. In addition to your points, a lot of these words have been politicized and are radioactive to some. I’m thinking about a family member who swims in far right leaning media spaces. He’s in support of a lot of these things but the terms themselves trigger a red flag he instinctively rebels against. Thanks for your piece
Absolutely love all these alternatives. Saving it to reference regularly!
I remembered one more for circular economy that I heard recently and loved: “There’s no such thing as waste,” or “there’s no such thing as throwing something away.” I’ve tried and failed numerous times to impart recycling/reusing habits on my non-environmentalist family members and it rarely sticks. I think it’s because to them, “throwing stuff away” is simply easier and more convenient, so although they know they SHOULD recycle/reuse, they don’t. Disrupting that throw-away habit at the source seems to help.
This is a useful list of environmental terms and suggested alternatives (thank you!) and I recognise that some words need to be oversimplified if they are to be broadly understood. But it's not always (only) about making concepts simpler. We need to make them more relatable too. For example, George Monbiot proposed that extinction (which is not in your list but is the title of your publication) be replaced by ecocide. Ecocide suggests human agency, whereas extinction is more passive. Climate change is much more urgently expressed as climate crisis, climate emergency, climate breakdown, climate disruption. Global warming sounds positively comfortable. Global heating or overheating conveys the implications more clearly. And as Chris Packham has pointed out, we tend to refer to biodiversity 'loss', as if species have been temporarily mislaid. But they've been destroyed. Btw, other words and phrases I'd like to see added to your list: ecosystem services, natural resources, and natural capital.
Some great ideas here — I broadly agree. Most of these terms are either vague abstractions or were once meaningful and are now just empty phrases. Some of the alternatives presented run the issue of being pretty long and cumbersome, though. Shorthand like 'net zero' can be pretty helpful as long as everyone knows what it means (and unfortunately, they don't). I think finding short, meaningful ways to convey complex climate topics will always be difficult.
Thanks for alternative words! I'll be honest, I'm really disappointed that so many of these words are considered too complicated. It reminds me of that book of The Lost Words by Robert Macfarlane, but the opposite. The words in the book are words that fell out of use and most people don't connect with. You've listed overused words that everyone ignores.
Besides using some of these words when communicating to other people, some of them feel so diluted now, when every company and their aunt are using them. Sustainability is so wrongly overused, it has lost all its meaning.
I’m a big believer in plain language but had never really stopped to think about how many sustainability related terms we use that few people really understand. Thanks for inspiring me to do better!
“the fact that they are formed from ancient organic matter is not really relevant…” except that it needs to be understood that human combustion of these fuels is rapidly undoing millions of years of ‘safe storage’ of these heat trapping gasses.
Thank you, lots of these words have been diluted or co-opted in some way and it makes it hard to communicate using these terms. I think about this a lot.
After almost 2 years working in a climate org in a comms role, I wasn't supported in thinking/communicating outside the box in this way and it was really frustrating, so I left. Ultimately people aren't going to be inspired to liberate themselves if we're using corporate-sounding sentences and keywords that have dubious meanings and affiliations.
I'm rly glad you wrote this. :)
thank you for this list and the alternatives. Please note that turning salt water into sweet (desalinating) is a process with extreme negative effects for the surrounding marine area. The highly saline refuse from the desalination plant harms or kills marine life.
So desalination is not something which only has positive effects. Indeed the negative ones are so harmful that they outweigh the positive, especially when the produced sweet water goes into swimming pools on dry islands.
Thank you for this one. It's a good strategy which has been (somewhat) fruitful in my experience.
Although, I do have issues with 'plant based plastics'. They still end up in landfills.
That’s right. Don’t presume. Precise language is important and has a huge impact on communication. People are likely to bring their meanings to the words. Put a comma after the word to add further explanation with more meaning to follow. For example, demersal fish, those that feed on the bottom. This method of communication fosters a more inclusive conversation where participants are less likely to talk over each other and more likely to engage meaningfully.
Climate change, global warming, is wreaking havoc on our lives. Using both terms is more inclusive and enables people who know how we stopped global warming in the past to speak without having “the science” dogma explained. When vice president Dick Cheney directed scientists to publish papers and engage people in a debate about why ”global warming” should be called “climate change,” it was a strategic move. This redirected our attention to the Heavens (and resonated with biblical passages). "Climate change" encompasses a broader range of environmental transformations, redirecting the focus to the intricate and nearly chaotic workings of the Earth's climate.
The analogy of warming a cup of coffee demonstrates the clarity of knowledge by experience and the importance of appropriate actions and tools. As a hairdryer cannot effectively warm coffee and requires a hot plate, addressing environmental issues necessitates correct approaches.
Property owners may resist directives on land stewardship, preferring autonomy, but the destruction of nature through the loss of vegetation and soils and pollution cannot be ignored. The resulting environmental degradation exacerbates wealth disparities, with land barons, technology wizards, and energy magnates profiting at the expense of broader societal well-being.
In 1871, Verplanck Colvin, at age 23, did not mince words in his New York state report: “The immediate cause has been the chopping and burning off of vast tracks of forests in the wilderness.” Colvin’s warnings did not go unheeded. In response, New York State embarked on an ambitious project to acquire over 1000 square miles (681,000 acres) of Adirondack forests in 1885. This significant conservation effort ensured that the region's water resources continued to cycle and maintained the flow of barge traffic in the Erie Canal from Albany to Buffalo.
The success of this initiative underscores the well-understood critical role that forests play in environmental sustainability, global warming, climate change, and economic stability.
Therefore, choosing words carefully is about wielding the power of language to convey truth and foster understanding. By being precise and considerate in our communication, we can bridge divides, engage in meaningful discourse, and work towards solutions that benefit all.
Absolutely, thank you for your eloquent response.
Brilliant write up, thank you. I often think these words are used in sustainability/climate circles as shorthand. People working in it understand implicitly what these words mean. And the clearer alternatives are all (I think) more words, and it feels like people think using more words is a bad thing, or are scared of dumbing things down perhaps.
I think the successful pushing of the “woke brand” into the mainstream consciousness, and its growth to include anything that those of a certain political persuasion don’t like or support, including green principles, means this terminology is not only difficult to understand for every day people but also now tarnished.
That adds more weight to your argument to start taking your suggested approach.
One point is that the term “endless energy source” really depends on perspective, is the source the energy asset or the sun, wind or water, if perceived as the asset its not endless, as the asset itself depreciates and must eventually be replaced.
However this point in your article inspired me to think about how to describe a clean energy financing protocol I’m currently working on in a different way. I arrived at:
An open financial system powering endless energy - without emissions, and with care for our planet.
Or even further simplified:
A new way to fund endless energy - without emissions, and with care for our planet.
So thanks for that bit of inspiration!
Good observations - I am not saying that people must use my exact terms, but we certainly have to simplify the messaging.
With that I am in complete agreement with you!
Great minds… we just published a similar piece but appreciate you filling in the whole glossary of nonsense language. Changing behaviors requires more compelling messages.
https://open.substack.com/pub/selfbrandstudio/p/the-dirty-truth-about-clean-energy?r=das2f&utm_medium=ios
I really agree with this. In addition to your points, a lot of these words have been politicized and are radioactive to some. I’m thinking about a family member who swims in far right leaning media spaces. He’s in support of a lot of these things but the terms themselves trigger a red flag he instinctively rebels against. Thanks for your piece
"Bringing back nature" really hits 👌
Absolutely love all these alternatives. Saving it to reference regularly!
I remembered one more for circular economy that I heard recently and loved: “There’s no such thing as waste,” or “there’s no such thing as throwing something away.” I’ve tried and failed numerous times to impart recycling/reusing habits on my non-environmentalist family members and it rarely sticks. I think it’s because to them, “throwing stuff away” is simply easier and more convenient, so although they know they SHOULD recycle/reuse, they don’t. Disrupting that throw-away habit at the source seems to help.
Being lazy, or doing something other than the norm, are indeed difficult habits to overcome. We can try....
This is a useful list of environmental terms and suggested alternatives (thank you!) and I recognise that some words need to be oversimplified if they are to be broadly understood. But it's not always (only) about making concepts simpler. We need to make them more relatable too. For example, George Monbiot proposed that extinction (which is not in your list but is the title of your publication) be replaced by ecocide. Ecocide suggests human agency, whereas extinction is more passive. Climate change is much more urgently expressed as climate crisis, climate emergency, climate breakdown, climate disruption. Global warming sounds positively comfortable. Global heating or overheating conveys the implications more clearly. And as Chris Packham has pointed out, we tend to refer to biodiversity 'loss', as if species have been temporarily mislaid. But they've been destroyed. Btw, other words and phrases I'd like to see added to your list: ecosystem services, natural resources, and natural capital.
Some great ideas here — I broadly agree. Most of these terms are either vague abstractions or were once meaningful and are now just empty phrases. Some of the alternatives presented run the issue of being pretty long and cumbersome, though. Shorthand like 'net zero' can be pretty helpful as long as everyone knows what it means (and unfortunately, they don't). I think finding short, meaningful ways to convey complex climate topics will always be difficult.
Thanks for alternative words! I'll be honest, I'm really disappointed that so many of these words are considered too complicated. It reminds me of that book of The Lost Words by Robert Macfarlane, but the opposite. The words in the book are words that fell out of use and most people don't connect with. You've listed overused words that everyone ignores.
Thank you. It's a fact, the vast majority of people need complex things explained to them in simple terms. So that is what we must do...