https://theconversation.com/using-language-to-make-the-world-of-fossil-fuels-strange-and-ugly-120204
[links in online article]
Using language to make the world of fossil fuels strange and ugly
July 18, 2019
Matthew Hoffmann
Professor of Political Science and Co-Director Environmental Governance
Lab, University of Toronto
They weren’t getting it.
I had a room full of bright first-year university students in front of
me, but confusion reigned as I tried to describe how embedded fossil
fuels are in every aspect of society.
“OK, let’s try this. What do you call a car that uses both gasoline and
battery power?” Relieved to be asked a question they could confidently
answer, a few students piped up: “Hybrid car!”
“Right. Now, what do you call a car that you plug in?” The number of
students joining the chorus grew: “Electric car!”
“Right again. So, what do you call a car that runs only on gasoline?”
The response was a bit delayed this time, but some wry smiles of
understanding accompanied the answer: “A car.”
Making the invisible visible
Despite dire warnings of climate catastrophe and research showing that
fossil fuels need to stay in the ground, the fossil fuel system remains
dominant, normal and even invisible.
We have cars and electricity and home heating and transportation systems
and agricultural and industrial production. None of them normally have
adjectives that denote their reliance on fossil fuels. That reliance is
natural and therefore invisible and unspoken. Normal.
As a society, we have not made the status quo strange and the negative
aspects of fossil fuel dominance visible in our language and labels:
dirty, gas-powered cars; polluting, coal-fired electricity;
unsustainable, oil-dependent agriculture. And we need to.
In their book Ending the Fossil Fuel Era, Thomas Princen, Jack Manno and
Pamela Martin explore U.S. philosopher Richard Rorty’s provocative idea
that major social change is in part dependent on “speaking differently”
to the problem of climate change. Making the fossil fuel world strange
and negative in our thoughts, speech and labels is part of pursuing the
transformation that we need to stave off the worst implications of
climate change.
Feminist and critical race scholars taught us this lesson in other
realms. Language matters because it helps us to construct our reality.
Adjectives or the lack thereof can signal the dominant and non-dominant
entities.
If your cause or identity has to use, or is subject to, adjectives, you
are often at a disadvantage. You’re not the norm. You’re not dominant.
Health and women’s health. Students and Black students. Such modifiers
serve to marginalize.
A number of climate policy scholars are convinced that part of the
transformation we need in order to address climate change is for people
and societies to positively imagine and envision a low-carbon life,
taking for granted the fossil fuel-free world on the horizon.
Perhaps the best indication that societies are succeeding on climate
change is not the increase of renewable energy capacity or investments
in low-carbon infrastructure, but instead the transformation of
adjectives — when descriptors like “renewable” and “low-carbon” become
superfluous because they are the natural, normal state of energy and
infrastructure.
Language as strategy
Changing our language and labels can be part of active strategies to
bring about change. It may not be as dramatic as political debates and
court cases over carbon taxes or marches in the streets. But this kind
of language strategy could contribute to change by making the fossil
fuel-dominated world visible and strange, and the low-carbon world normal.
An example of this active language work just emerged in the United
Kingdom, where the Financial Times reported that the London stock
exchange, known as the FTSE, recently changed the labels of energy stocks:
“BP and Royal Dutch Shell, and other U.K.-listed exploration and
production companies like Cairn Energy and Tullow Oil, are now grouped
in the ‘non-renewable’ index, previously called ‘oil & gas producers.’”
Just in case anyone thinks this is merely a semantic change, the
Financial Times story goes on to note that Norway’s $1 trillion
sovereign wealth fund, which is actively decarbonizing, will use the
classification to:
“…determine which fossil fuel companies to divest, with the changes
potentially affecting the inclusion or exclusion of an oil company or
security from the fund’s blacklist.”
This strategy of making the fossil fuel world strange and negative must
become standard as we transition to a low-carbon future.
Journalists, thought leaders and politicians all have a role to play
here. They should commit to putting descriptive and even negative
adjectives on things that do not normally have them — modifiers like
“gas-powered,” “polluting,” “high-carbon” — both in speech and on labels
that have material impact, like the categorization of stocks on the FTSE
index.
Adjectives are not magic, and they do not preclude the hard work of
political change. But if imagining and speaking the world we want to see
is crucial in building support and momentum for transformation, then
what is visible and invisible, strange and normal, positive and
negative, has to change.
I told my students I would have more hope for the prospects for avoiding
climate catastrophe when “gas-powered” was necessary to modify “car”
because the natural state of cars had changed to electric. Changing how
we think, talk and label the world we’re in and the world we’d like to
be in is part of that transformation.
=====================================
To subscribe, unsubscribe, turn vacation mode on or off,
or carry out other user-actions for this list, visit
https://www.freelists.org/list/keiths-list
Note: new climate change website is now in pre-launch
Visit https://www.10n10.ca/e/index.shtml