Words matter. It’s vital terms like ‘crisis’ and ‘calamity’ don’t become rhetorical devices devoid of real content as we argue about what climate action to take.
I got as far as " The lead authors of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports now pull no punches, talking openly about mass starvation, extinctions and disasters." before I decided to stop reading this one. Is the thesis that when talking to liberals we have to frame the climate crisis in relation to their personal experiences or they won't be able to empathize with people dying (eg due to hurricane katrina or the heatwaves or wildfires in their own backyards)? or is the thesis that "crisis, while apt is too divisive, therefore, we should call it something else so the people who are functionally denialists (insofar as the impede progress) can't as easily "well ackshually" our word choice"?
I got as far as " The lead authors of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports now pull no punches, talking openly about mass starvation, extinctions and disasters." before I decided to stop reading this one. Is the thesis that when talking to liberals we have to frame the climate crisis in relation to their personal experiences or they won't be able to empathize with people dying (eg due to hurricane katrina or the heatwaves or wildfires in their own backyards)? or is the thesis that "crisis, while apt is too divisive, therefore, we should call it something else so the people who are functionally denialists (insofar as the impede progress) can't as easily "well ackshually" our word choice"?
Crisis for thee, but not for me :the-democrat: