Klimakrisen er reel, men overforbrug af udtryk som krise og nødsituation er forbundet med risiko

"Krise" er et utroligt potent ord, så det er interessant at være vidne til, hvordan udtrykket "klimakrise" er blevet en del af lingua franca.

Engang kun forbundet med nogle få "udtalte" videnskabsmænd og aktivister, er sætningen nu blevet mainstream.

Men hvad forstår folk ved udtrykket "klimakrise"? Og hvorfor betyder det noget?

Mainstreaming af krisesnak

Det er ikke kun aktivister eller videnskabsmænd, der slår alarm.

FN's generalsekretær Antonio Guterres bruger nu rutinemæssigt dramatiske sætninger som at "grave vores egne grave", når han diskuterer klima. Bill Gates råder os til at undgå "klimakatastrofe."

Denne sproglige mainstreaming markerer omtegnede kamplinjer i "klimakrigene."

Fornægtelse er på tilbagetog. Klimadebatten handler nu om, hvad der skal gøres og af hvem?

Forskere, der bruger deres professions fulde autoritet, har været nøglen til at ændre diskursen. De ledende forfattere af rapporter fra Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) trækker nu ikke slag og taler åbent om massesult, udryddelse og katastrofer.

Disse offentlige personer håber tydeligvis at rykke borgere, virksomheder og regeringer ind i radikal klimahandling.

Men for mange almindelige mennesker kan klimaændringer virke fjernt fra hverdagen. Det er ikke en "krise" på den umiddelbare måde, pandemien har været.

Selvfølgelig mener mange, at klimaeksperter har undervurderet problemet for længe.

Og alligevel garanterer den nye udbredelse af sireneudtryk som klima-"krise", "nødsituation", "katastrofe", "sammenbrud" og "katastrofe" ikke nogen fælles, endsige troværdig, forståelse af deres mulige betydning.

Dette betyder noget, fordi sådanne udtryk har en tendens til at polarisere.

Få tvivler nu på klimaændringernes virkelighed. Men hvordan vi beskriver dets implikationer kan let gentage tidligere stand-offs mellem "troende" og "skeptikere"; "realister" og "skræmmemagere." Resultatet er endnu mere politisk inerti og gridlock.

Vi bliver nødt til at gøre det bedre.

Fire ideer til en ny vej frem

Udtryk som "klimakrise" er kommet for at blive. Men videnskabsmænd, lærere og politikere skal være kyndige. En skarp bevidsthed om, hvad andre mennesker kan tænke, når de hører os råbe "krise!" kan føre til bedre kommunikation.

Her er fire ideer, du skal huske på.

1. Vi skal udfordre dystopiske og frelsesfortællinger

En krise er, når tingene falder fra hinanden. Vi ser dagligt nyhedsrapporter om kriser – oversvømmelser i Pakistan, økonomisk sammenbrud i Sri Lanka, hungersnød i dele af Afrika.

But "climate crisis" signifies something that feels beyond the range of ordinary experience, especially to the wealthy. People quickly reach for culturally available ideas to fill the vacuum.

One is the notion of an all-encompassing societal break down, where only a few survive. Cormac McCarthy's bleak book The Road is one example.

Central to many apocalyptic narratives is the idea technology and a few brave people (usually men) can save the day in the nick of time, as in films like Interstellar.

The problem, of course, is these (often fanciful) depictions aren't suitable ways to interpret what climate scientists have been warning people about. The world is far more complicated.

2. We must bring the climate crisis home and make it present now

Even if they're willing to acknowledge it as a looming crisis, many think climate change impacts will be predominantly felt elsewhere or in the distant future.

The disappearance of Tuvalu as sea levels rise is an existential crisis for its citizens but may seem a remote, albeit tragic, problem to people in Chicago, Oslo or Cape Town.

But the recent floods in eastern Australia and the heatwave in Europe allow a powerful point to be made:no place is immune from extreme weather as the planet heats up.

There won't be a one-size-fits-all global climate crisis as per many Hollywood movies. Instead, people must understand global warming will trigger myriad local-to-regional scale crises.

Many will be on the doorstep, many will last for years or decades. Most will be made worse if we don't act now. Getting people to understand this is crucial.

3. We must explain:a crisis in relation to what?

The climate wars showed us value disputes get transposed into arguments about scientific evidence and its interpretation.

A crisis occurs when events are judged in light of certain values, such as people's right to adequate food, healthcare and shelter.

Pronouncements of crisis need to explain the values that underpin judgements about unacceptable risk, harm and loss.

Historians, philosophers, legal scholars and others help us to think clearly about our values and what exactly we mean when we say "crisis."

4. We must appreciate other crises and challenges matter more to many people

Some are tempted to occupy the moral high ground and imply the climate crisis is so grand as to eclipse all others. This is understandable but imprudent.

It's important to respect other perspectives and negotiate a way forward. Consider, for example, the way author Bjørn Lomborg has questioned the climate emergency by arguing it's not the main threat.

Lomborg was widely pilloried. But his arguments resonated with many. We may disagree with him, but his views are not irrational.

We must seek to understand how and why this kind of argument makes sense to so many people.

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. + Udforsk yderligere

How can dermatology take action against climate change?

Denne artikel er genudgivet fra The Conversation under en Creative Commons-licens. Læs den originale artikel.