Sticking to tried-and-true terms is often the best strategy for climate communication, according to a new survey conducted in the United States. The findings also suggest that merely changing vocabulary won’t magically erase political divides on the topic.
Studies since the 1940s have shown that the words used to frame a topic can sway public opinion. And people’s responses to different terms can change over time as new terms become more familiar and sometimes more – or less – politicized.
The term “climate change,” for example, was originally promoted by a Republican operative to de-emphasize the role of human actions in causing what was then most commonly referred to as “global warming.” More recently, some publications have begun to use the terms “climate crisis” and “climate emergency” to convey the urgency of the issue. And grassroots organizations on the left speak of “climate justice” to emphasize that the people who will suffer the most from climate change are those who have contributed least to causing it.
But relatively little is known about how these newer terms affect people’s perceptions of the climate issue.
In the new study, researchers analyzed survey data from 5,137 people who took part in the Understanding America Study conducted by the University of Southern California Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research. The participants were randomly assigned to answer a series of questions about climate that used the terms “global warming,” “climate change,” “climate crisis,” “climate emergency,” or “climate justice.”
Almost 90% of people knew the terms “climate change” and “global warming,” researchers report in the journal Climatic Change. A majority were also familiar with “climate crisis” and “climate emergency.” But only 33% were familiar with the term “climate justice.”
The familiar, tried-and-true phrases “climate change” and “global warming” also spurred the greatest (and similar levels of) concern and urgency, the researchers found. “Climate emergency” and “climate crisis” prompted somewhat less concern and urgency – contrary to the intentions behind the introduction of these terms – and “climate justice” the least.
The different phrases didn’t affect people’s support for climate policy or willingness to eat less red meat very much, though again the most familiar terms came out on top.
“When terms were unfamiliar, participants were generally less likely to express concern, urgency, policy support, or willingness to eat less red meat,” the researchers write. “We therefore recommend sticking with familiar terms, conclude that changing terminology is likely not the key solution for promoting climate action.”
The researchers also investigated how responses to the different terms varied depending on a person’s political orientation. More than 90% of Democrats and nearly 75% of Independents, but only 37% of Republicans, were concerned about “climate change.”
Meanwhile, “climate justice” prompted concern among 71% of Democrats, 46% of Independents, and 23% of Republicans. This new, relatively unfamiliar term raised concern only among a majority of Democrats. Most democrats and Independents were concerned about all the other terms, however. And “No term raised enough concern to reach a majority among Republicans,” the researchers report.
The findings suggest that terminology alone isn’t enough to overcome political polarization on climate. “Climate change communications may therefore need to go beyond terminology to promote willingness to act,” the researchers say.
Source: Bruine de Bruin W. et al. “Should we change the term we use for ‘climate change’? Evidence from a national U.S. terminology experiment.” Climatic Change 2024
Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine
