Using hyperbolic language to describe global warming does not affect people’s perception of the urgency of climate change, according to a report released Monday by the University of Southern California’s American Understanding Study (UAS).
of study Like British climate activists Guardian Newspapers have officially chosen terms like “climate crisis” and “climate emergency” to heighten concern and convey urgency, but these efforts appear to be in vain.
“The terms ‘climate emergency, crisis and collapse’ are preferred instead of ‘climate change’ and the term ‘global warming’ is preferred over ‘global warming’, but the original terms are not banned.” Guardian This was said when announcing an update to our official company style guide in 2019.
In April of the same year, a team of advertising consultants at SPARK Neuro published research suggesting that the terms “global warming” and “climate change” did not scare people enough, and that changing them to “climate crisis” or “environmental collapse” could provoke a much stronger emotional response.
Related: Elderly climate activists are trying to destroy Magna Carta
For example, the study found that the phrase “climate crisis” “elicited a 60 percent higher emotional response from listeners” than “climate change.”
In its research, SPARK Neuro measured physiological data such as brain activity and palm sweat to quantify people’s emotional responses to stimuli.
The research team attached electroencephalography (EEG) devices to the heads of 120 volunteers to measure electrical activity emanating from the brain.
At the same time, a webcam monitored their facial expressions and sensors on their fingers recorded sweating caused by heightened emotions.
Climate activists protest against plans to expand London City Airport outside the Department for Transport in London, England on July 27, 2024. (Christian Booth/In Pictures via Getty Images)
Of the six different options, “global warming” and “climate change” performed the worst, losing out badly to “climate crisis,” “environmental destruction,” “weather instability” and “environmental collapse.”
Spencer Gerolle, CEO of SPARK Neuro, said that “global warming” and “climate change” are both neutral terms – there’s nothing inherently negative or positive about the words themselves – which explains why they evoke such a weak emotional response.
Moreover, both global warming and climate change are “incredibly exhausting” and no longer respond as they once did, Gerol said.
The new USC study suggests the opposite is true: People respond more strongly to the words “global warming” and “climate change” than to more theatrical terms.
Related: New Mexico Democratic governor taunted by left-wing protesters during speech
“Overall, ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ were rated as most immediate and of greatest concern, ‘climate justice’ was rated as the least concerning, and ‘climate crisis’ and ‘climate emergency’ received intermediate ratings,” the survey revealed.
“Furthermore, we found no evidence that ‘climate crisis’ or ‘climate emergency’ is perceived to be more urgent than ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’,” the report added.
“We therefore recommend sticking with familiar terminology, conclude that changing terminology is not a viable solution for promoting climate action, and suggest alternative communication strategies,” the report concludes.
