Nearly a year ago I wrote about how ‘supply chain’ as a term influences our thinking about the workers involved in precisely that supply chain. Or rather: how the terminology we use abstracts from the fact that there are living and sentient human beings doing the work.
Language however is not only useful when it is about giving a mechanised appearance to human driven business activities (such a the above example of the supply chain). Listening to a recent podcast it dawned on me that language can be just as useful to gloss over the seriousness and impact of scientific facts and achievements.
Vocabulary choices: to gloss or not to gloss, that is the question
Let’s take a few example to illustrate where the choice of terminology drives our perception, and with it potentially our motivation to act with urgency:
- Climate Change vs. Climate Emergency
The first suggest a process. Slow, steady, ongoing. Foreseeable.
The latter: a phenomenon that needs to be reacted to urgently. Now. Immediately. With no time to be wasted. - Hydrocarbon fuels vs. fossil fuels
The first merely refers to the chemical compounds our current energy supply relies on. Technically speaking, hydrocarbons can be created from non-fossil resources (particularly: biomass). This is true. And in this way, the term paints a shade of green over an ugly reality by linking it to what some would denominate a ‘renewable energy source’.
What the terminology avoided to mention: what ever the source, the climate impact is what it is. The link to CO2 emissions are the key issue.
The latter term: makes a clear link between fuels, the energy generation, finite resources – and the climate crisis. - Green energy vs renewable energy vs. ‘clean energy’
To be clear: all three of terms are suboptimal.
Green energy vaguely refers to energy technologies that are supposed to be more environmentally (and societally) friendly. The breadth thereof can reach from nuclear, to biomass-based to ‘better coal’. The term does not say much, other than – possibly – ‘marginal improvement’. And yet, it pretends that whatever the technology or technologies referred to, they are part of the solution rather than the problem.
Renewable energy: also here a close scrutiny of the exact technologies referred to is required. And: a look above and beyond CO2 generation of the energy itself is required – after all some ‘verschlimmbessern’ (regrettable substitutions) may be part of it. Again, technologies like biomass-based generation will be included. Or, to take another example, questionable hydro-energy projects that could leave whole ecosystems devastated, such as the Vjosa Dam in Albania.
Clean energy at least in terms of imagery makes a more unbiased cased. However … as once more it lacks definition, an arbitrary collection of energy generation techniques is jumbled together under this heading. Purposely playing with the conjured imagery in people’s minds.
These are just three of these terminology issues, where gloss is put on, and over, the ‘true’ meaning of what should be conveyed.
All of these could be classified as greenwashing. But more than anything this reflects a reluctance to deal with hard scientific facts – and to accordingly to them, leaving political issues aside. Hence ‘glossing’ over hard facts, by softening the hard – even harsh – meaning of scientific facts. What was clear cut becomes a bit more fuzzy, a bit more ambiguous, and certainly less urgent.
Language Matters
Language matters. Language accuracy mattes. And terminology must be chosen so as to be accurate, not in order to be palatable. To reflect the actual situation, not the political priorities of parties and lobbyists of any colour and association.
Language must follow science … not the other way around.
Just as much as politics, policies, and business implementation must – and should – follow science, rather than personal preferences, or personal benefits and advantages.
