4 ms·

> just as it was when the term "global warming" that people understood got replaced with "climate change" which is much muddier. For the record the "climate c

> just as it was when the term "global warming" that people understood got replaced with "climate change" which is much muddier. For the record the "climate change" phrasing is attributed to republican consultant Frank Luntz and pushed by the Bush administration allegedly as a way to make it sound less frightening. [0] Some climate organizations are correctly using the expression "climate emergency" which is more apt given the current circunstances. As a sidenote "Carbon footprint" was also a concept fabricated by Ogilvy & Mather a PR company hired by BP, with the purpose of deflecting attention away from Oil&Gas industry and onto consumers. [1] [0] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/frank-luntz-the-man-who-came-up-with-climate-change-and-regrets-it-6v6pp00pc https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/frank-luntz-the-man-who-c... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...

PaulHoule 4y ago
Right, politicians can say things like "the climate is changing all the time" to buy another 20 years of inaction. Now we are seeing big "net-zero" promises 30 or 40 years down the road, what's mostly likely is that in 15 years there is another big fad for taking action in 50 or 60 years.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
gruez 4y ago
>For the record the "climate change" phrasing is attributed to republican consultant Frank Luntz and pushed by the Bush administration allegedly as a way to make it sound less frightening. [0] >Some climate organizations are correctly using the expression "climate emergency" which is more apt given the current circunstances. Isn't this the same thing as "climate change", but in the opposite direction?
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  No, it is absolutely justified. CO2 emissions are still rising. We are currently cheering and celebrating reductions... in acceleration. Feedback loops like methane emissions due to permafrost melting are still gonna hit us even if we all went into caveman lifestyles right now. That means that we go into a positive feedback loop where temperature keeps raising irrespective of our actions. There are already densely populated regions getting close to 'wet bulb temperatures' which means they won't be able to sustain life much longer. There are regions that have no readiness for floods or draughts or cyclones who will now face them. Emergency sounds about right to me.
  - gruez 4y ago
    > No, it is absolutely justified. The problem is that "emergency" is fundamentally a loaded phrase, and once you establish a precedent of using loaded phrases when it's "justified", everyone (including your opponents) will start using it. After all, everything is "justified" to the activists petitioning for it. The end result is that every issue gets "emergency" slapped to the end of it, and the phrase becomes meaningless.

PaulHoule 4y ago

Right, politicians can say things like "the climate is changing all the time" to buy another 20 years of inaction. Now we are seeing big "net-zero" promises 30 or 40 years down the road, what's mostly likely is that in 15 years there is another big fad for taking action in 50 or 60 years.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

gruez 4y ago

>For the record the "climate change" phrasing is attributed to republican consultant Frank Luntz and pushed by the Bush administration allegedly as a way to make it sound less frightening. [0] >Some climate organizations are correctly using the expression "climate emergency" which is more apt given the current circunstances. Isn't this the same thing as "climate change", but in the opposite direction?

DoingIsLearning 4y ago
No, it is absolutely justified. CO2 emissions are still rising. We are currently cheering and celebrating reductions... in acceleration. Feedback loops like methane emissions due to permafrost melting are still gonna hit us even if we all went into caveman lifestyles right now. That means that we go into a positive feedback loop where temperature keeps raising irrespective of our actions. There are already densely populated regions getting close to 'wet bulb temperatures' which means they won't be able to sustain life much longer. There are regions that have no readiness for floods or draughts or cyclones who will now face them. Emergency sounds about right to me.
- gruez 4y ago
  > No, it is absolutely justified. The problem is that "emergency" is fundamentally a loaded phrase, and once you establish a precedent of using loaded phrases when it's "justified", everyone (including your opponents) will start using it. After all, everything is "justified" to the activists petitioning for it. The end result is that every issue gets "emergency" slapped to the end of it, and the phrase becomes meaningless.