according to a study conducted by the proceedings of the national academy of sciences, the planet could see a greater increase in global temperatures in the next 50 years than it did in the last 6,000 combined.

climate change has already started to affect global affairs and today strains relations between countries.

countries in the middle east are fueding over water, a decline in agricultural output is fueling hunger and poverty in latin america, and changing weather patterns are contributing to rapid urbanization worldwide, which in turn reinforces the problem of climate change.

as demonstrated by publishers and magazines like the council on foreign relations and foreign policy, climate change is a foreign policy issue and will require multilateral cooperation to mitigate, or it will continue to affect international relations for years to come.

interestingly, the language used to refer to this global phenomenon has shifted over the years. it was first referred to as “global warming,” but this term has been phasing out in the past decade or so in favor of “climate change” which is an all encompassing term that better describes the worsening environment.

however, there has been a third term that has gained popularity in recent years: the “climate crisis.” other related terms include the “climate emergency” and “climate catastrophe.” these terms put more urgency on the situation so that people can better understand the stakes of climate change.

various organizations have made a point to replace outdated terminology with more accurate ones in regards to the environment.

for example, in 2019 the guardian, a british daily newspaper, published an article addressing the fact they are updating their “style guide” to “to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world.”

these changes came less than a year after the un secretary general antónio guterres first used the term “climate crisis” in a speech in september of 2018.

the guardian made six main language changes on the environment. for example, “climate crisis” will be used instead of “climate change” in order to more accurately reflect the seriousness of the situation. also, “climate denier” will be used instead of “climate skeptic” to be more specific, as well as “greenhouse gas emissions” in place of “carbon emissions.” 

the guardian stands as an example of how language can have power in society and can affect public opinion, and prompts other news sources to make similar changes. 

in addition to rhetoric changes in the media, new words have even been added to the dictionary.

in the month prior to the 26th conference of the parties to the united nations framework convention on climate change (cop26) in november of 2021, the oxford english dictionary (oed) released an update on climate terminology.

according to the oxford monitor corpus of english, a source that analyzes trends in the english language, the term “climate crisis” made its first appearance in the dictionary in 2021 and the term became 20 times more popular from 2018 to 2020. also, while the oed usually doesn’t usually include chemical formulas, it recently added co2 to the dictionary because of its frequent use in society today.

“global heating” is another addition to the dictionary –– despite “global warming” already existing –– because of how it reflects a more urgent and accurate connotation. additionally, terms like “eco-anxiety” and “climate refugees” have been added as well.

the update on the oxford english dictionary is a telling sign of the urgency of the climate situation and better equips people to add to the discourse on environmentalism. 

it has become clear that the climate crisis is a problem that cannot be solved by one actor alone.

it will require global governance and the participation of leading international organizations, individuals, and states. the window for action is closing, and measures need to be taken immediately to mitigate the climate crisis.

language and rhetoric hold a lot of power in our society and should be used with caution and good intentions. news sources can learn from the guardian, which made a point to switch to more effective and informed language when referring to the climate crisis.

this switch in rhetoric has many political implications, which consequently affects the economy and society as well. despite clear scientific evidence of a worsening environment, climate change continues to be one of the most polarizing issues in the world today.

there is a clear partisan divide over environmental regulations in the united states. presidential candidates often address energy and environmental issues during their campaigns, and how their policies will (or will not) affect the economy. 

in an interview for the journal of critical thought and praxis, dr. danielle endres, associate professor of communication and faculty in the environmental humanities masters program at the university of utah, introduces climate change rhetoric as a social phenomenon.

she states that “climate change is not only a material phenomenon; it is also a social phenomenon. we cannot hope to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, slow the warming of the planet, and adapt to the changes already in effect without broad societal change.”

the science itself is rather straightforward, but it is what we do with the science that is causing extreme deliberation in our society.

increased environmental regulation is necessary to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis. new environmental organizations, regional responses, and improved education methods are just a few ways in which we can halt or even reverse the effects of climate change in our generation.

the climate crisis is one of the largest and most consequential problems that we have faced as a society and will require collective action to overcome. changing the way in which we refer to the changing climate will determine the methods we use to effectively respond to the situation –– rhetoric holds power and it is time that we yield this tool to create a more environmentally-conscious society. 

as i took the path to becoming a scientist, i spent the majority of my time investigating miniscule details of those why’s and how’s that began my journey. but as i dove deeper into learning about what keeps the redwoods and critters going, i was also immersed in a community where science, and more importantly, scientists are not to be politically opinionated: neutrality kept the science pure and focused. and it made sense. but then it didn’t make sense.

when i look at redwoods now, i no longer just see the beauty of these tallest trees, but also that redwoods store more carbon dioxide than any other tree. it’s amazing capabilities include:

• ability to have one gene produce multiple characteristics to survive in various environments 

• tall structures to build crowns optimal for photosynthesis

• decay-resistant heartwood

so when there are threats to redwoods, i am no longer saddened solely because of the potential loss of beauty, but also because of the cascading effects it’ll bring to the ecosystem. the long and normalized divide between science and politics have completely separated the people who are making decisions on our environment from the factual information regarding it. you see, politics, while having no informational connections, are as rooted together with science as it is with history. whether it be economically (due to future changes in our access to resources) or socially (with dangers to our health), the future is predicted by science. so when we separate science from politics, the decisions on how we treat our resources and our land are not backed up by the many decades of work went into helping make that decision a right one.

today, the war on science is reaching an inflection point as the mass effects from climate change become apparent. it is no longer just strayed polar bears on melting ice caps some 3,000 miles away. it has become the raging fires, resulting from unprecedented periods of drought, that is covering the once blue skies of california and oregon with ash and smoke, the toxic algae blooms in lake superior due to warming of the water, and the worsening hurricanes increasing in numbers. as scientists, writers, artists, or politicians, we have the responsibility to recognize this and see the action items needed to make the future possible.

standing here today as a scientist and a member of society hoping to see again the awe and wonder of our planet in the future, i recognize that i am as responsible for the authenticity of my science as i am to know its purpose in the world. science should no longer shy away from the politics and be solely directed to other scientists for future discoveries.

take the study of invertebrate fossils for example: through them, we see the story of how marine ecosystems were affected by climate changes over the course of the last 12 million years. that story in turn warns us of how deforestation and continuing usage of nonrenewable energy may deplete the availability of seafood due to ocean acidification. it is not that seafood is an enjoyable meal for many, but that it sustains over a billion people on earth that should alarm us into making sure political decisions based on this science.

masked underneath all the details and jargon, science has a story — one that is much needed to be told in our current state. now is the time to summon our inner lorax and be the storytellers of science for our planet, our future.

do you know what the world will look like in 2050?

it seems like every week a new statistic is released to indicate the dire consequences of climate change on the world of 2050 – a world most alive today will have to live through. yet only 40 percent of americans believe that climate change will affect them personally and only 32 percent think that global warming will harm them personally a great deal or a moderate amount.

we took to the streets of d.c. to see what people know of the possibilities of climate change in their lifetimes. check out our video to see what folks had to say. here are a few facts (of what’s in store in just 37 years) that didn’t make the cut as were editing:

• there will be 2 billion more people on earth. that’s 9 billion people.
• world food production will need to increase by 70 percent to meet demand.
• flood damage in 136 of the world’s largest coastal cities could soar to $1 trillion a year by 2050, according to a study published in nature climate change.

what do you think of this picture of 2050? what are you doing to prepare for a world unlike one we’ve seen before? join the conversation below! also, check out this clip of some people’s unique ideas about 2050. let’s just say the climate was not on everyone’s mind.

money over matter: poll finds americans value economy over environment

a new gallup poll [http://www.gallup.com/poll/146681/americans-increasingly-prioritize-economy-environment.aspx?utm_source=email%2ba%2bfriend&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sharing&utm_term=americans-increasingly-prioritize-economy-environment&utm_content=morelink] finds that americans prioritize the economy over the environment by a wider margin than in almost 30 years, reflecting large attitude shifts among conservatives and widening political divides.

results from gallup’s annual environmental poll show that 54% of americans prioritize the economy over the environment, compared to 36% who view environmental issues as more pressing. (it is assumed that 10% of those surveyed were “undecided,” but gallup does not account for the missing 10%.)

these results contrast drastically from those released in 2000, when americans prioritized the environment over the economy by a greater than 2-to-1 margin (67% to 28%).

gallup notes that the widest swing in views came from right-wingers. republicans actually picked the environment over the economy by a 26 percentage-point gap in 2000. in the latest poll, however, their views seesawed a dramatic 81 points to favor economic prioritization by 55 points. among conservatives (which gallup defines as a separate group from “republicans”), there was a significant 71-point swing.

views from democrats and liberals (defined as two separate groups, in this study) did not change as dramatically, with 38% and 32% shifts, respectively, toward economic prioritization.

the results of the poll clearly reflect a drastically different economic climate in 2011 vs. 2000, as well as political views influenced by a current agenda propagated by the likes of the tea party and fox news.

but as disconcerting as the lack of concern for the environment is, the mere existence of this gallup poll, which has been conducted annually since 1984, could be even more troubling. indeed, the question should not be environment vs. economy. the political discourse of late, however, has increasingly encouraged a divide between issues that do not inherently contract each other.

environmental preservation is not a hindrance to nor an opponent of economic development, but rather a catalyst to its growth. the clean-energy sector, for instance, represents a giant opportunity for economic proliferation. it is through this symbiotic relationship, and bipartisan cooperation, that the u.s. economy — as well as our planet — will have the opportunity to truly flourish.

(survey methodology: results are based on telephone interviews conducted march 3-6, 2011 with a random sample of –1,021—adults, aged 18+, living in the continental u.s., selected using random-digit dial sampling. for results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of error is ±4 percentage points. for results based on the sample of –494—national adults in form a and –527—national adults in form b, the maximum margins of sampling error are ±5 percentage points.)