
Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment - okket
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment
======
herogreen
Here is another one we should use: Recycling -> Downcycling (in most of the
cases where it is used)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling)

------
rchaud
Glad that they've put their policies in writing. If only this could be done
for other types of man-made events that are sanitized by diplomat-speak:

* Military invasion w/ 250k troops: "regime change"

* Widespread bombing campaign: "shock and awe"

* Drone attacks that kill civilians: "precision strikes"

* Societal breakdown and re-emergence of internecine conflict: "birth pangs of a new Middle East"

------
frittig
> “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also
> communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue. [...] The
> phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when
> what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.”

The a term that precisely describes what is happening, does not rile up enough
people, so inorder to improve "accuracy" they want to use buzz words.

it seems like they are more interested in improving "clicks" than "accuracy".

~~~
anoncake
No, "climate change" is neither precise nor very accurate. It is not precise
because it does not tell us anything about how the climate changing. "Climate
emergency" is more precise because it tells us that climate is changing in a
problematic manner that requires immediate action. "Global warming" is more
precise because it tells us that the climate changes in that temperatures
increase. And "global heating" is even more precise because it tells us that
the earth warms too much.

"Climate change" and "global warming" are accurate on a semantic level but not
on the level of pragmatics. In particular, people generally understand "warm"
as "warm, but not hot".

------
ForHackernews
For Americans, here's a petition aimed at US networks urging them to use more
urgent language to describe the ongoing climate disaster:
[https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/call-it-a-climate-
crisis](https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/call-it-a-climate-crisis)

------
vbuwivbiu
Good. this is much more precise language.

------
Kaiyou
Nothing they write is actionable, so I'm not sure how changing the language
would affect anything. Imho it amounts to little else besides fear mongering,
if there isn't actionable advice.

~~~
anoncake
Of course it amounts to fearmongering. People are insufficiently afraid of
global heating, fearmongering is appropriate.

~~~
devoply
If the media can fear monger about rare events it should definitely be fear
mongering about guaranteed events.

