Why 'Climate Intervention' Is the Right Term for the Most Dramatic Response to Climate Change
Based on anecdotal evidence from our work with people from all walks of life, we have experienced that language — specific terms — has a great effect on the nature of the dialogue on climate. As a matter of both effective policy and social justice, when it comes to scientific or technical areas with implications for all people, we need to use language that is both accessible and accurate. We need to find ways of communicating complex ideas that illuminate, rather than mask, their meaning. Scientific and technical jargon can be both confusing and alienating, which is why policymakers generally opt for language that is clear but still rigorous in its foundational meaning.
These principles are profoundly important with respect to the complex and controversial topic of approaches to directly influencing climate to reduce warming, sometimes known as ‘climate intervention,’ or ‘geoengineering.’ More recently, less accurate and more aspirational terms like ‘climate restoration’ or ‘climate repair’ have been used.
Since it was coined in the 1960s, ‘geoengineering’ has been the predominant term used by the small group of scientists and enthusiasts in what has been, until recently, a very small expert community. As climate change progressed, and the field grew to include major scientific assessments, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reviewed this terminology as part of a pair of 2015 reports on the topic. They arrived at the term ‘climate intervention’ as a more accurate expression of the nature of the activity. Their reasons included that ‘engineering’ implied a level of control, which is not a feature of these approaches, and that the work involved in these approaches is not primarily engineering, but earth systems science. (In the latter, the ‘geoengineering’ term contributes to significant misunderstanding). Importantly, as we found later, ‘geoengineering’ also does not communicate any relationship to climate.
My organization, SilverLining, is ‘science-led,’ meaning that we follow the guidance of the scientific community, and look to promote ideas and language that are accessible across a wide range of audiences, yet compatible with scientific accuracy and integrity. We look to scientific assessments and to our partners and collaborators in leadership roles in the scientific community for guidance on what is acceptable. It also means that we avoid language that might overstate claims, including positive or negative associations that are not substantiated by science. Thus, we follow the lead of scientists who do not support ‘climate repair,’ ‘climate restoration,’ or ‘climate management’ for these approaches, which can imply an effectiveness that is not established. Similarly, we do not support language that implies negative effects that are not likely — this includes ‘sun dimming’ or ‘solar shading,’ as changes in the strength of visible light are not anticipated in mainline proposals for these approaches.
We have found that one of the most helpful metaphors in understanding the complex dynamics of climate change is that of a fever in the human body. The human body includes complex systems dynamics like the earth system: non-linear changes, compounding effects from stressors and uncertain outcomes from both negative health events and their treatments. As with medical interventions, climate interventions are uncertain, and they are not a cure, but part of a portfolio of patient care — often the part that keeps the patient stable for longer-term treatments to take effect.
Since the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2015 report on the topic, ‘geoengineering’ and ‘climate intervention’ have often been used interchangeably. The older term, ‘geoengineering,’ has historically been used in literature and media, primarily by subject matter experts and enthusiasts. After ‘climate intervention’ was introduced in 2015 by the NAS, its use has been concentrated in U.S. science agencies, the U.S. Congress, policymakers, certain nonprofits, and some recent literature and media.
The adoption of ‘climate intervention’ in the U.S. policy community has been very helpful to constructive policy dialogue and balanced consideration of research in the field. It has also promoted more inclusive dialogue through its ability to communicate meaning to non-experts with less confusion.
As we work towards ensuring a safe climate for all, it is imperative that we use language that is accessible and accurate with the people we aim to protect. The terms and phrases we use to describe our work drive the way in which people understand and relate to the topic, which is essential for inclusive dialogue and effective decision-making.
With this in mind, SilverLining set out to better understand the comprehension and reaction to the two most commonly used terms for approaches to directly influence the Earth’s climate to reduce global warming, ‘geoengineering’ and ‘climate intervention,’ by members of the public. To do this, SilverLining commissioned a nationally representative survey led by survey research experts Patrick Ruffini and Eleanor O’Neil at Echelon Insights. The national survey was composed of 1,006 registered voters in the 2020 likely electorate and fielded from October 16–22, 2020.
Results from the survey suggest that ‘climate intervention’ may be the preferable term for approaches to directly reducing Earth’s warming because of better comprehension, reduced confusion, and more neutral perceptions of safety. Respondents expressed more familiarity with the term ‘climate intervention’ and better understood its meaning. However, most respondents were unfamiliar with both terms, indicating a need and opportunity for the adoption of effective language.
Here are some top-line results from the survey:
35% of respondents had heard a lot or some about ‘climate intervention,’ whereas only 19% of respondents had heard of ‘geoengineering’
When given a list of possible definitions for each term, 57% of respondents were able to correctly identify that ‘climate intervention’ is about efforts to combat climate change, compared to only 22% of respondents with ‘geoengineering.’
By a 4-to-1 ratio (45% to 10%), respondents were also more likely to say ‘geoengineering’ sounds harder to understand than ‘climate intervention.’
By a 3-to-1 ratio (32% to 11%), respondents felt that of the two terms, ‘climate intervention’ “sounds safer” than ‘geoengineering.’
Today, as society begins to consider a broader range of responses to dangerous climate conditions, accurate and accessible language to describe possible options for responding is deeply important. To promote informed dialogue, science-based decision-making, and real participation from a wide array of stakeholders in society in a matter of profound importance to their futures, we will use — and encourage our colleagues and others who are concerned about societal dialogue in this area to use — ‘climate intervention’ to describe these approaches.
We note that this language, and our study to date, is centered in the U.S., and we hope to explore international reactions and equivalents in the future.
Related Content
