Calling climate change by another name creates limits of its own. The way we talk about the problem affects how we deal with it. And though some new wording may deflect political heat, it can’t alter the fact that, “climate change” or not, the climate is changing.On the other hand, does it matter that Max Boykoff talks of "climate change" in general when he means "anthropogenic" or "human-made" climate change?
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
by Werner Krauss
In January, Max Boykoff wrote an opinion piece in the Washington post about an Interesting shift in Obama's 'climate change' rhetoric. Obama stopped almost completely using the term "climate change"; instead, he talks about "energy" and "clean energy". According to another study, this seems to reflect a worldwide tendency. Boykoff complains that "clean energy" does not cover impacts such as changing land use, deforestation, and other forms of climate pollution than carbon. "Clean energy" also avoids the problem of curbing consumption. Correctly, he reminds us that