What began as “global warming” gradually changed to “climate change”. In the past few years, The Guardian led a movement to change that to “Climate Crisis” or “Climate Emergency” or “Global Heating” with a specific goal of frightening readers.<\/p>\n
Now, the movement is refining the language further to “carbon pollution” or “climate pollution”.<\/p>\n
The thinking is people will more closely identify with and fear “pollution” and thereby be influenced more strongly.<\/p>\n
The intent is to persuade target audiences to adopt their climate change\/climate crisis\/climate pollution agenda:<\/p>\n
This simple exercise helps explain the growing popularity of once-rare phrases like \u201ccarbon pollution\u201d and \u201cclimate pollution\u201d in place of \u201ccarbon emissions\u201d or the older \u201cgreenhouse gases.\u201d Connecting climate change with something visceral and dangerous brings more immediacy to a problem that\u2019s often seen as unfolding far away or in the future, even though it\u2019s causing suffering now. \u201cClimate pollution\u201d is becoming common on the websites of green groups and atop news stories. \u201cCarbon pollution\u201d has been adopted by the Biden administration, appearing on the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s site, in press releases about cleaning up manufacturing, and in speeches by the president.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n