Giving Compass' Take:

• Psychologists argue that an us-versus-them narrative for climate action turns people away from logic and into the realm of emotion and values. Changing our climate change vocabulary might be necessary to garner support and catalyze action. 

• How can donors help change the narrative and vocabulary around climate change?

• Read about fighting and battling against climate change. 


Each dead house fly was worth a quarter, my mom told us kids, but I never earned any money. Every time I cornered a fly, I pictured goo marks left on the wall – spots splayed with tiny black guts and twisted legs. My halfhearted swats gave even the most sluggish fly time to escape.

That I genuinely couldn’t hurt a fly might have been something I picked up in church. I grew up attending a Mennonite congregation in Indiana. We weren’t the bonnet-wearing, buggy-riding sort, but we embraced some traditions, like the Anabaptist teaching of nonviolence. This sometimes expressed itself in an instinct for conflict avoidance.

When we talk about saving the planet, we employ the narrative of war. Does it only deepen our divisions?

So I was surprised when violence crept into my speech three years ago when I started working as a journalist covering climate change. Some ancient spirit took hold of me, and I found myself deploying the narrative of war. Carbon tax proposals were “battles” to be fought. Greenhouse gas emissions had to be “slashed”. “Eco-warriors” and “climate hawks” were leading the charge.

Read the full article on changing the way we talk about climate change by Kate Yoder at The Guardian.