Thread by @GeorgeMonbiot

In this thread, @cartoonralph and I discuss new ways of talking about the living world and the threats it faces, so that our language stimulates people’s imagination and encourages them to act. We share our thinking so far, and ask for your opinions and ideas. *Please RT*
1/30

Many terms in popular use are scientifically precise, but cold and alienating. We’re aware that some of the alternatives we suggest are less precise (for example Wildlife, as opposed to Biodiversity) but we believe they are more likely to engage people.
2/30

Let’s start with the coldest and emptiest word of all: the Environment. Have you ever seen the Environment? The word creates no pictures in the mind. So what we suggest instead is:
The Living Planet
The Natural World
Our Shared Home.
Your thoughts?
3/30

Environmental may still be a useful adjective, however. For example: the Environmental Crisis, or Environmental Breakdown. Or can you think of a better one?
4/30

The next term we want to replace is Climate Change. It is muted and neutral, creating no sense of the existential crisis we face.
We propose two terms with slightly different meanings: Climate Chaos, that leads to Climate Breakdown.
5/30

Climate Chaos is what we’re already experiencing: heatwaves, droughts, floods, intensified storms etc
Climate Breakdown is what will happen if we don’t take immediate and decisive action.
6/30

Global Warming sounds, well, warm and comforting. Who doesn’t like warm weather? It invites that old denialist talking point: “Brrr, where’s that global warming they promised?” We suggest Global Heating or Global Over-Heating.
7/30

Biodiversity might be precise, but how many people know what it means? Like Environment, it’s a term that makes it hard to see what we’re talking about. This is why we prefer Wildlife.
8/30

When we talk about fish numbers, we tend to use the term Fish Stocks. This suggests that fish exist to serve us: their meaning and purpose is as food for humans.
We suggest Wild Fish Populations.
9/30

Natural Resources has a similar connotation, suggesting human ownership. We propose Living Systems and, when talking about non-living materials, The Earth’s Fabric.
10/30

Worse still is Natural Capital: a term that commodifies and reduces the living world to a subset of the human economy.
How about just Nature? Or the Living Planet, Natural World etc - see above
11/30

Ecosystem Services is also anthropocentric and reductive, suggesting that the Living Planet is part of the service economy.
We propose Life Support Systems. This reminds us that we depend on a healthy natural world, without suggesting that it’s all about us.
12/30

Perhaps even worse in terms of its anthropocentric and instrumental focus is Natural Infrastructure, used to describe features like rivers and hills. @GreenAllianceUK and @nationaltrust, among others, have been using this framing. Just stop!
green-alliance.org.uk/new_routes_to_…
13/30

Nature Reserve is another cold and distancing term. Reserve means “a lack of warmth or openness in manner or expression.”
We haven’t settled on a term yet, but our suggestions include
Wildlife Haven
Wildlife Sanctuary
Wildlife Refuge
Special Wildlife Area
Over to you.
14/30

Sites of Special Scientific Interest is a carcrash of a term, peculiar to the UK. It's bureaucratic and distancing, and suggests these treasured places are interesting only to scientists. Perhaps something like Protected Wildlife Haven? That’s not quite right. Ideas please.
15/30

We feel that terms like Habitat Destruction, Deforestation and Biodiversity Loss remove the agency behind these processes, making it sound almost as if they are happening by themselves. We suggest replacing them with Ecocide or Annihilation.
16/30

Given that almost all living systems are now in a state of extreme depletion, we no longer believe that Conservation or Preservation are appropriate terms. We would replace them with Restoration. Conservation groups should rename themselves Restoration groups.
17/30

We often talk about our desire for Clean Rivers or Clean Seas, which makes us sound like an advertisement for toilet cleaner. To keep the focus on the life we want them to contain, we suggest Thriving Rivers and Thriving Seas.
18/30

When environmental policies or targets are out of line with the science, NGOs tend to say they are Disappointed, Concerned or that the policies are Unambitious. We urge them to use more accurate language, such as Unrealistic, Inadequate and Not Based on Reality.
19/30

Fossil Fuels is, from the environmental point of view, quite a useful term, as it suggests redundancy. But we feel that Dirty Fuels is a stronger description.
20/30

However, it might be interesting to think of ways to extend the notion of redundancy. For example, by calling the old, dirty processes we want to replace the Fossil Economy.
21/30

People who deny Climate Chaos call themselves Climate Sceptics. But scepticism implies open-mindedness. To dismiss the massive weight of accumulated evidence, your mind has to be locked and bolted.
22/30

We differ slightly on this one. George prefers Climate Science Denier. Ralph feels this invokes the fake climate debate. He prefers Climate Breakdown Denier or, as their goal is to prevent action, Climate Breakdown Cheerleader or Climate Breaker. Your thoughts?
23/30

We also like the term @AOC uses to describe people who don’t deny climate science, but impede action to prevent Climate Breakdown: Climate Delayers.
24/30

Groups like @iealondon and @ASI call themselves Free Market Think Tanks. But they refuse to reveal who funds them, while arguing in favour of fossil fuel companies, tobacco firms and other highly destructive industries. We prefer Covertly-Funded Lobby Groups.
25/30

One of the most misused phrases in the English language is Sustainable Development. “Sustainable” is now tacked onto almost everything, however destructive it may be. We haven’t yet thought of a good substitute, that can’t be so easily abused. Ideas please.
26/30

Sometimes we find ourselves talking about “Saving the Planet”. This invites a set of common responses: “the planet doesn’t need saving”, “who are you to set yourself up as a saviour?” etc.
We prefer Defending Our Shared Home / Living Systems / Life Support Systems
27/30

We also propose that we should stop using wildlife as metaphors for unpleasant people and bad behaviour. Wolves, weasels, hyaenas, sharks and other species get a bad rap as a result. These metaphors are likely to reinforce people’s hostility towards them.
28/30

When governments or powerful interests want to reduce a wild animal’s population, they say Culling. Whether the policy makes sense or not, we believe it should not be disguised with this euphemism. Killing is more honest, and reminds people of the weight of the decision.
29/30

This is just a start. As well as commenting on the suggestions we’ve made, and proposing better alternatives if you don’t like them, we invite you to name other inadequate terms and possible substitutes. Please RT this thread, so we get plenty of feedback. Thank you.
30/30