We have a crisis of language on our hands.

‘Climate-speak’ is endemic in NGO and activist circles, and it’s now permeating the mainstream in potentially unhelpful ways.

Similar to corporate jargon and ngo-speak, climate-speak refers to the various linguistic shortcuts we use to refer to the climate crisis. Words and terms that can make it easier to discuss for among the in-group, but are confusing and sometimes dumbfounding to anyone else.

Let’s take the word “Climate” itself — frequently used as a catch-all. We cringe at the buffet as we explain to Uncle Dave’s work friend that we work ‘on climate’ and ‘in the climate space’ as we inconspicuously claw at the vegetarian sandwiches.

But ‘Climate’ means many things, from the state of politics, to the weather outside, to how sweaty Uncle Dave’s car is.

Originally used in professional and policy settings, this verbal tic has leaked out into wider culture. When this happens, it’s too easy for the meaning to be manipulated, appropriated or demonised.

We should say what we mean, even if it means using more words.

Working “on climate” might mean crafting policies to mitigate and adapt to the consequences of rising temperatures. It might mean organising and bringing together community groups to create networks of support and distribute resources. It might mean helping businesses adapt to a new economy.

Each of these examples is more specific, and more compelling, than the often conversation-stalling C-word.

Net-zero and the hijacking of language

As humans we love to coin phrases, but it almost always backfires. ‘Net-Zero’ is a classic example of jargon that gets hijacked by bad actors.

A policy term popularised around COP26 in Glasgow, it has come to mean ‘expensive and unpopular policies’ in the public imagination. It’s abstract, so let’s put it in context: ‘Net-zero carbon emissions’ means we want to emit less CO2 through burning fossil fuels than we remove through things like planting trees and restoring peat bogs (which absorb CO2).

When explained, it’s a pretty common-sense idea that most people would probably be on board with. Sure, it’s a difficult concept to put into a single term, but maybe we don’t need to.

From ‘The Great Reset’ to ‘Build Back Better,’ ‘15 minute cities’ and ‘Net-zero’ — these are all terms that only represent part of their intended definition. When our beloved phrase gets severed from its meaning, it’s open to interpretation, misappropriation and abuse.

If you didn’t have the jargon, how would you say it?

Sustainability

Is sustainability sustainable any more? A once beloved word to environmentalists, ‘sustainable’ has long-since been overused beyond any meaningful comprehension. While some terms get harnessed for the culture war, ‘sustainability’ is vague enough to mean whatever you want.

A sustainable business could be one that has a completely circular supply chain, or has simply started recycling. It could also just be a profitable business that has long term ‘sustainability,’ regardless of its environmental actions.

In some sense, this word has become an indicator of just how behind the conversation in the business world is — stuck on recycling and switching lights off when a drastic overhaul of our economy is needed.

Hiding behind a catch-all word like this can drain it of its meaning. It’s happening with other words too: fast-fashion and sportswear brands have long been trying to own the “circular” label, obfuscating their overall exploitative practices.

The challenge: how to communicate clearly and quickly without falling into the trap of oversimplifying?

‘Just Transition’

It’s just a transition but what does it mean?

A ‘Just Transition’ – an effort to clarify that the switch to clean energy and carbon-free lifestyles should not come at the expense of working class people, particularly in traditional industrial areas and industrialising countries across the world.

This well-meaning phrase is ironically obscure to the people it aims to defend.

‘Transition’ is a passive, vaguely technocratic word that sounds like something that just sort of happens.
It’s a slow word (three syllables) that refers to a process that generally takes a while. It lacks urgency and motivation. Adding the prefix “Just” only makes it sound more like legalese, further confusing the meaning (just a transition? The only transition?)

Rather than falling back on shorthand, or trying to invent a new think-tanked and focus-grouped phrase, we should simply say what we mean.

For example, instead of:
“We demand a Just Transition to renewable energy”

We could explain it:
“We’re calling for a switch from polluting fuels—like oil, coal and gas—to clean, safe renewable energy like solar and wind.”

Sometimes it’s better to use even more words:
“Let’s make the switch to clean, safe, renewable energy like solar and wind.
Let’s protect our future, providing training, skills, and new jobs in the process.
We need to shift our whole energy system now, not later.
Together we can create a safe, clean, self-sufficient future for our communities and our families.”

These statements can be disagreed with, sure, but it’s less easy to misconstrue their meaning. All sorts of bad-faith ideas can be associated with a term like ‘net-zero’ or even ‘green policies’ — from simple unfair taxes to lockdowns and FEMA camps.

Let’s be clear and specific about the things we need to do, and try to win people over to our cause.