We probably should have framed climate change as climate instability. Maybe the idea of chaotic storms and unprepared infrastructure would be more motivating than a general slight rise in temp.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I think this accidentally conveys snark or disdain for the work that was done along the way, and that wasn’t my intent. I was just musing about how we could have maybe conveyed the anxiety and fear that we’re feeling and avoided it. I’m sure people tried.
No, I think you have a good term here with "climate instability."
I've also heard people suggest we consistently use the term "climate crisis" to help convey the urgency. These are both useful terms and better than "climate change" or "global warming."
We just had a major storm hit Ireland and the wind gust was 183 kph or 114 mph, the highest ever recorded. It blew out power to more than 10% of the population of the island.
I heard of 2 deaths 1 a 20 year old who died when a tree fell on hospital car in Raphoe not far from me and another person in Scotland. As casualties go we were lucky, but still 2 too many.
It doesn’t, it’s a great point, I just think the people who do the science never thought they’d need to. But we, especially Americans, really only understand change on short time scales or dramatic events, and those who profit understand that well.
Also... increasing frequency and severity of catastrophic weather events that lead to higher insurance rates or outright uninsurability of people's homes and businesses. That's where we are. Ask insurance carriers. They've stopped betting on some states' properties.
💡 why not stop calling it by the fossil fuel industry term “climate change” and call it what it is POLLUTION. Climate change places responsibility on all, pollution entails responsibility therefore liability to specific ppl/entities - think about it
"Babies exhale CO2, hbt8, so you want to criminalize babies breathing. Hey everyone hbt8 wants to criminalize BABIES BREATHING" -- there are reasons we got to where we are, with the terminology.
I'm not trolling you buddy, I've been an environmentalist for a long time, I suspect since before you were in diapers. My point is the messaging needs to withstand the PR counteroffensive of the oil companies, or you can undermine your cause.
I can appreciate that for publishing, however the messaging is for individuals that read on a 6th grade level. The climate is always changing. Pollution IS causing current climatic changes and pollution has legal responsibility …ask a republican, Arnold S.
Yep. The insurance industry is not in any state of denial about global climate change. Their eyes are wide open and have been for a decade. The increasing losses are the talk of primary carriers, reinsurance carriers, all of them, worldwide. (And yes, I'm a tiny part of that industry.)
I’d really hoped that the insurance issue would force action because this time it was an industry in danger. But that was dumb, it’s a drop in the bucket next to the anti-earth lobby.
Apparently so. Insurance carriers aren't wading into the issue either. They're generally conservative by nature (pro tort reform, etc.) So they probably don't want to argue with their friends. They'll just restrict coverage and move on. They aren't known for pro-people activism.
I’ve also been thinking about the ramifications of climate denial - especially since our homeowners insurance jumped $700 in a year with no incident reports. Not sure how some folks will continue to afford these rate hikes!
The carriers will exclude anything that's likely to happen, or straight up "non-renew" policies at expiration. Frankly you can't charge enough premium to break even in some areas.
I believe you that individuals did for sure, it’s the organized movements side I’m thinking of. And I’m not blaming anyone, you’re right sci-comm ain’t easy.
I’ve heard people use the phrase Climate Weirding so when it snows in Texas people can’t be like -see it’s not warming. I think instability is very good but people may not understand how nice and stable the climate they are giving up is if they haven’t studied earth sciences.
It wouldn't matter. Their side can take any message and make sure a name sticks to it what can be derided in some way. Black lives matter. Defund the police. Global warming. Socialism.
Yeah I hear you. I didn’t mean to imply it would have definitely worked or would be easy, just musing on what filtered through to the public on the issue vs the tangible reality.
We’ll have to change it anyway, so that’s a good one. The gop made “global warming” unusable and toxic as a term, now the same probably w “climate change” so climate instability might get some of them able to climb out of their political culture war against Dems and vote to help.
You make a good point. That's exactly why we don't call it global warming anymore. Because of people that still say "hyuck hyuck... they said it'd get warmer. Idiots!"
I like this idea! It's a solid reframing. The right already reframed it away from 'global warming' so why not change it again? Take back the narrative.
Comments
I've also heard people suggest we consistently use the term "climate crisis" to help convey the urgency. These are both useful terms and better than "climate change" or "global warming."
Makes more sense doesn’t it
Boom. Done.
Now we can say, the Reds are Pro Pollution
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/02/world/global-warming-climate-change-language-scn/index.html