When scientists, environmentalists and marketers talk about climate change, they often do it metaphorically.
The atmosphere is a kind of greenhouse. Carbon dioxide is like a heat-trapping blanket. Climate change resembles a house on fire.Metaphors are a crucial part of communicating climate change, said Stephen Flusberg, an associate professor of psychology at the State University of New York, because "metaphors are central to how we talk and think about a lot of aspects of our world."
Metaphors are supposed to lead to action, and one climate change metaphor that’s gaining traction is the idea of going to war.
For example, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, made the comparison a couple of years ago in her proposal for a Green New Deal, in which she called for "a new national, social, industrial and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II."
Flusberg said war metaphors can be useful in getting people interested in a cause, at least in the short term. "Wars convey a sense of urgency and risk," he said.
"Whenever politicians or journalists or pundits are trying to get attention to an issue, it helps to use language that activates strong emotions — and wars do that."
But when you promise a war, you're setting people up for disappointment, said Flusberg.
"For example, the War on Drugs in the United States, kicked off by Richard Nixon, at first really did mobilize law enforcement and the public to start to view drug problems as a serious issue to tackle. But over time, it's been an absolute abject failure.
"It's unclear how we win or lose that war. When would we say, 'OK, we've done it, we've won'?"
Lucy Atkinson, an associate professor in communication at the University of Texas, said relying on factual information alone is just not good enough in mobilizing people to act on many issues.
"It can be a pitfall in that we tend to think, 'Oh, it's a problem of knowledge, it's a problem of information. If people just knew more about the issue, then they would do something.' We call that the information-deficit model. And it's not really the best way to go about communicating," said Atkinson.
"People know they shouldn't text and drive, and people still do it. So it's not just about providing information, but providing avenues for change."
Chris Shaw, a researcher for Climate Outreach in the U.K., says environmental advocates must remember that people are motivated by more than fear or anger.
"The stories that people want to hear, and climate change, have got to connect. Those stories that really matter to people … [are] about the heart." For example, this recent
World Wildlife Fund campaign makes an emotional pitch by suggesting "nature needs our love."
Kai Chan, a professor in sustainability at the University of British Columbia, agrees that the public and scientists could learn a lot about love.
"We as scientists need to be much more in touch with our emotions and also our values. It's helping us to recognize that we all do, surely, in one way or another, love this planet that we call home — and then asking us whether our actions are consistent with that emotion."
— Matthew Lazin-RyderListen to the full episode of The Greenest Metaphor from CBC Radio’s Ideas here. 
