TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Replace ‘Climate Change’ with ‘Climate Crisis'

Could we please take a giant leap forward in the eco debate? Could we please replace ‘Climate Change’ with ‘Climate Crisis?’ For a 2-word impact, ‘Climate Change’ is weak and nebulous. ‘Climate Crisis’ is powerful. Other than residents of L.A. and Miami, everyone feels like they have always lived with climate change. So let’s stop the ‘Climate Change’ rhetoric right now. Lets brand this properly and make an important milestone in the ecology debate. ‘Climate Crisis’ is both accurate and urgent. ‘Climate Change’ is neither.

Share:
  • Apr 17 2014: Danny
    On March 31, 2014, The United Nations released the following report
    “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s new report—which is seven years in the making—draws on “widespread” evidence of “substantial” climate change impacts “on all continents and across the oceans.” For the first time, the IPCC has scientifically linked the changing climate with the destabilization of nation states. It is also increasingly confident of serious effects on food crops, water supplies, and human health, plus global species loss.”

    In the 1970’s Americans were bombarded with news reports of an imminent planetary disaster, an ice age. Reports from government agencies, renowned scientists and celebrities began in 1970 and continued thru 1979.
    1970 – Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15,
    Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
    1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)

    Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%
    “The coming flood: Explore the future's rising seas.” The New Scientist
    NY Time's Friedman Compares "Climate Change Deniers" to Trotsky Marxists

    “Denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.” Gawker-3/28/14



    For over 4 decades constant reports by government and private agencies have painted a changing picture of eminent planetary doom, but yet persistent reports to the contrary emerge exposing fraud, scandal and threats by those reporting agencies. If dissent is punished and squashed does truth remain?

    The threat of man made planetary climate disaster is a political agenda without scientific foundation. Over 31,000 scientists have attested to that and have received no public attention to speak of. "No Convincing scientific Evidence"
    http://www.petitionproject.org/
  • thumb
    Apr 15 2014: What we call it is irrelevant. As long as government is in bed with industry all we will ever get is the resulting dirty laundry tossed in our faces while they retreat to their cushy estates. Politicians are primarily interested in re-election and the profit takers are primarily interested in profits. Both of which are short term goals with short term gains. Many in both camps are either indifferent to such future concerns as the world's climate or they simply don't care because they only care about the present and their power.

    Some believe that science and technology can eventually "fix" any problem so let's wait for the crisis and then the fix.. Others believe their wealth will provide them with sanctuary, either in some remote, well protected enclave, or even off planet in their own private space station. Others just don't care, as long as they are able to wallow in excess today.

    Meanwhile, those who ARE concerned are free to speak out as often as they wish. At least until they start to have an effect and then they can expect to be discredited some how. The concerned are also free to demonstrate in the streets. That is if they first get permission to demonstrate and that the demonstration is confined to a particular area and to a particular time frame and is closely watched by phalanxes of heavily armed storm trooper clad cops. Petition are nice ways to gather up the names of all those who are "concerned" and are demanding action. Who knows who will benefit from having all those names on file? But remember, no petition is binding.

    Oh, and the "concerned" can wait a few more years and try to get different people elected but, oh ya, the ones that the parties nominate have already been vetted as being compliant to the status quo and an independent is akin to being invisible in government. .

    Yep, we sure is free, at least to worry all we want. .
  • thumb
    Apr 22 2014: The earth has a dramatic history of climate changes impossible for us, humans, to comprehend. The earth is going through its drastic transformations no matter what we do, whether we are around or not. But to say that we cannot do anything at all would be criminal..

    Roughly, the Earth's atmosphere has five layers. The thickest is near the surface and it thins out with height until it eventually merges with space.

    The thickest layer which is near the earth surface is the air we are breathing, and from which we're eventually getting some drinking water.
    The ocean is the main producer of oxygen, and when we keep poluting the earth and the water we keep digging our own graves.

    We must stop poisoning the air and water. The earth atmosphere is far not endless, and to this very day we "effect" it in the worst possible ways. HOW to slow down that disaster ?? OUR PERSONAL LIFESTYLE MUST BE CHANGED. Our mentality and deeds as well.

    Fighting governments and industries which, so ironically, we are so supporting and feeding as consuming masses, is a terrible waste of our energy and time.

    Because these industrial monsters entirely depend on consumers (not the other way as we think) The best easiest way for us to fix those man-made problems IS to start IGNORING horrific productions. This will paralyze the brainless industries very quickly.


    Unfortunately so many poisonous elements are already produced creating hellish changes on Earth, but we can begin to cooperate today as good, somewhat intelligent individuals.

    Lets at least stop consuming fossil fuel, refuse manipulated food production, recycle garbage, and PLANT as many TREES as possible.

    Thank you for publishing THIS TOPIC, Danny!
    • thumb
      Apr 28 2014: Verapatia,

      No new water or air! We are consuming the same stuff time after time, after our alterations! Interesting an after "effect". We are doing this to ourselves and those who will come after. That could be described as selfishly ignorant. Not only are you beautiful but bright too, you have presented the problem and opposing solution in a clearly defined and refined way. Either we balance or nature will. The closer we are to nature the better off we are. Who Loves us better? Needless to say things didn't get this way overnight, so we all need to change direction real soon. Regards
  • Apr 20 2014: Admitedly, I am a climate change skeptic. I would appreciate discussing the actual science....not saying that x% of scientists agree, but the actual science. I want to understand and make up my own mind. At this point, here's what I know. CO2 makes up about 400ppm of the atmosphere, and that the CO2 traps heat and acting like a blanket. 400ppm is the same as 4 parts per 10,000. It seems to me to be incredibly insignificant, and unable to act as a "blanket". I've also understood that Methane traps tremendously more heat than CO2, but this doesn't fit the need to blame humans. I'm very willing to understand if we really have a problem, then let';s figure it out...but let's not spend billions/trillions of $ if we really don't have a problem. Can someone intelligently explain the science, but keep away from proving the point because eveyone agrees. Throughout history, the collective "we" have been wrong a lot. Please educate
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2014: Andy,
      Unlike you, I can comfortably say that the climate is changing, it is always changing, Global Climate is the accumulation of a number of points of weather data from a great number of weather stations from around the world. So, as the weather changes, the climate changes. It seems to have serve some political purpose in the last few years to address these changes to the use of fossil based fuels and the generation of CO2 in the atmosphere. As you have pointed out the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost minuscule and there are so many other "pollutants" that have or could have far greater impact. However, there is some truth to the claim that man has influenced the weather and by extension the climate. In many parts of the world, large numbers of people have gathered together in great megalopolises. And all this human activity in a small area; roads, roofs and parking lots, millions of people... just the body temperatures alone can raise regional temperatures... I am exaggerating of course, but meteorologists have noted weather patterns effected around large cities. As far as I can learn, there has been little or no study done one these effects on the climate.
      But, this discussion is not about science, it's about politics...you know what made me convinced of this....
      No reputable scientist would refer to other scientists as "deniers" or call for jailing when there is a difference of opinion.... not in public anyway.
  • Apr 17 2014: Something definitely needs to happen in this respect. Right now the united states government is in charge of something called HAARP. HAARP is technology aimed at using the earth's atmosphere for various purposes. it can actively control the aurora borealis, effect weather, and potentially shield the earth itself from incoming threats. That being said, it needs to be destroyed, especially after the 2014 North American Polar Vortex in which the atmosphere over most of north america was thinned out comparable to the north and south pole. I'm saying that humanity's effect on the earth is becoming self evident, with Fukushima bleeding so much radiation, HAARP pumping unsafe amounts of energy into the atmosphere, and the generally disgusting pollution and waste issues tha we've wrought on our planet, there needs to be a change. It has to be radical and fast. The financial elite of the earth are out of control. They have more wealth and resource than we could ever imagine, and they use none of it in the name of longevity. They just want more.
    • Apr 17 2014: Royce

      Some questions Royce

      With regard to HARP what evidence do you have?
      Who are the financial elite? What evidence do you have to support your assertions?
      What are these immediate and drastic changes you call for?
      How is the Aurora Borealis controlled and to what end. You do realize that the Aurora originates from the sun?
      • Apr 17 2014: HAARP is public knowledge that can be found anywhere. If you look it up as I have, you'll see that HAARP has the capability to manipulate the levels of energy in the atmosphere that are normally supplied by the sun. (Hence what i mentioned about the aurora borealis). The energies that I speak of effect us in more ways than we can list, due to the fact that our limited scientific understanding has put us at a disadvantage in studying them. In the documentary I've cited below they describe how the human brain picks up low levels of electrical signals from our atmosphere that can be affected by HAARP, as well as its implications into weather control.

        www.hulu.com/watch/100445

        As far as the financial elite I mentioned, they mostly go unnamed. I could call them Illuminati, The Rothschilds, The Rockefellers, but you'll just call me a conspiracy theorist. When you follow the trail of money upward, it becomes evident that the people you see on TV and call 'Government' are only puppets of a much greater power. I could site any number of evidences that prove this point but again I would only be discredited as a conspiracy theorist.
        The changes I call for are a complete collapse of the financial, judicial, and governmental systems on Earth. It will be ugly and there will be chaos. What will follow (now that humanity has reached a more common technological and social understanding) will be incorruptable governments. a more solid monetary system, and laws that dont put any one group of people at a disadvantage.
        • Apr 19 2014: Royce

          Your last paragraph is interesting. You would promote a complete societal collapse, which would result in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people to achieve a totalitarian form of government: Is that correct?
          Can you give an example of an incorruptible form of government?
          What is a 'more solid monetary system?
          What laws do we have now that puts "one group of people at a disadvantage."?
      • Apr 21 2014: Thank you for your questions charles. I realize i can only provide so much information in the form of a comment, and when you ask me to clarify what i'm talking about it gives me a chance to better explain myself.
        The collapse i'm talking about is in order to cut out political and administrative corruption. The fact that any companies that have the money can financially get in bed with our politicians is disgusting. It discredits our gorvernment entirely, but the people paying the politicians own everything so we'll never see anything on CNN or any popular news medium that even addresses how much of our government is being controlled by people with the money to keep our laws profitable to them.
        We need to replace the current system and install one that makes corruption impossible. It's a long shot, and probably wont ever happen.
        In reference to a solid monetary system, the same people who own the government own the banks, currently there is (my memory on the issue is vague) about 9 trilllion dollars missing from the Federal Reserve Bank. That is money that is unaccounted for and again owned by individuals with a disgusting amount of power that have no fear of the negative effects of their actions. We need to do away with this and replace it with smaller, more localized banks that have no impact on the nations economy (such as the Federal Reserve Bank).
        And finally the laws i mentioned that disadvantage people are of course racial laws. Equal Opportunity laws (while assisting a lot of people) create a negative stigma with regards to race relations. So for example, before i meet a minority, I'm already going to hate him because the government wants him to do better than me. Obviously the US government had some making up to do after slavery and segregation. True to form they handled things in the worst possible way, rather than abolishing any and all laws regarding race andor culture, they decided to say "white people are the best, the rest need our blessing"
        • Apr 21 2014: Replace ‘Climate Change’ with ‘Climate Crisis'? "...white people are the best..." Well done Royce. How old are you?
        • Apr 21 2014: Royce Lee

          Glad to be of assistance. I, too find it helpful if I respond to a challenge.
          Are you blaming capitalism for the Federal Reserve or are you tying them both together.They are not synonymous and I would suggest a good reading of its origins and the political thinking of the then President W. Wilson.
          Smaller and localized banks was one of the arguments used to create the Fed and that such a system led to monetary instability.
          Like so many others you seem to blame the capitalists and capitalism, of which I am one, for the corruption of government?
          Your goals are admirable, but are very altruistic. You do not factor in human nature into your equation. Greed takes many forms, from the politician who solicits bribes or who quietly accepts one or two to the welfare recipient who votes for the politician who will promise more welfare. Then you have the bureaucrat whose job is to promote the needs of the indigent and with more defined indigent he may get a promotion or a raise. And the indigent who will gladly be defined, as one. Playing the system from both ends.
          Your sentiments regarding the racial atmosphere are seemingly shared my many. The laws that were enacted and continue to be enacted serve to divide, not only races, but gender, and a myriad of other preferences that receive preferential treatment. These laws do not say white people are the best. They are designed to degrade all people, to pit one segment of society against another, to tear apart any unity left in the country and to lower standards and expectations, as can be evidenced in our failed education system. The quest for many of these groups is not equality, but money from the federal and State governments and superiority.
          Read the Bill of Rights and tell me, if you would, how you could improve them. That would be a good starting point, if freedom is what you are looking for.
    • thumb
      Apr 17 2014: Royce, HAARP isn't new. It already exists for 20 years.
      What is relatively new though is that conspiracy theorists picked up on it claiming that this research project is used for sinister purposes.
      • Apr 17 2014: I'm not claiming it's new. Im just pointing out that it's existence is a threat to humanity. It's there, fully capable of everything described. Just because it didn't f**k up and kill us all on day 1 doesn't mean it can't potentially do that.
      • Apr 17 2014: Harald, I read the report you cited and quoted a few interesting things below.

        "In fact, HAARP is a unique case of cold war-era military goals meshing with scientific research, and then maintaining that linkage even after the end of the war."

        "They were huge — needing 135 kilometres of antenna wire to transmit the signal — and many took exception to their goals and to the possible detrimental effects on the health of people living nearby."

        “Then of course we also fund [military] proposals and contracts that come in under broad agency announcements, in which researchers propose research that is of interest to the various organizations.”

        I'm in agreement with you that this is important research. Scientifically speaking, HAARP is an important tool in studying our atmosphere. But as with ANYTHING MANKIND HAS EVER INVENTED, there will be bugs. It has too much military application to be left in the hands of any one nation. Until there is some mass disaster where the number of fatalities can't be ignored, I feel the safety of humanity is compromised.
        • thumb
          Apr 17 2014: I agree with you on the point that everything that has the potential of misuse, at some point most likely will be misused. That's a risk of many things mankind invented.
          Does that mean we have to avoid progress ? I don't think so, but we have to ensure as much as we can that abuse is avoided.
  • Apr 15 2014: The real inconvenient truth is the sooner humans disappear from earth, the better off the earth and the rest of it's residents will be so, let's all frack an drill more oil wells, help burn down all the forests and pave it for more Walmarts and raise more cattle on GMO food sprayed with Monsanto chemicals. Then take drugs for the rest of our lives to cope:)

    "Give me an "F!..."F"! give me a "U"!..."U"!"...
    "Now come on Senators don't be slow, why man this war's a-go-go"
    "There's plenty good money to be made, supplyin' the Obama with the drones of the trade"
    "Put down your books and pick up your joystick, we're gonna have a whole lotta fun"
    "And it's 1, 2, 3 what are we fightin for?
    Don't ask me, I don't give a damn"
  • thumb
    Apr 14 2014: 'Climate Change' is accurate. The Earth's climate is changing as it has always changed. 'Climate Crisis' would imply that there is something unusual going on, and furthermore something that we are empowered to do anything about.

    For most of Earth's history, it has been warmer than it has been for the past 100,000 years or so, so what do you think humans could do to keep temperatures at this below-average state?

    As we know, forty thousand years ago there were glaciers as far south as Kentucky. Several million years ago there were tropical jungles all the way north to the Arctic Circle. This tells us three things:

    1) the Earth's climate has, can, and will change to either extreme without any help or interference from modern civilization,

    2) the climate mankind has experienced these past tens of millennia cannot be taken as a normal baseline, or that something is going 'wrong' if it begins to change,

    3) and the might of this planet's climate is many orders of magnitude stronger than mankind's ability to alter, whether purposefully or no.
    • thumb
      Apr 15 2014: Typical climate change denial rhetoric.
      While it is true that climate changes always existed, you miss the fact that it is not the climate change itself that is the problem but the speed at which it occurs.
      First, in the past there were no humans (or at least not many) around, let alone a infrastructure as humanity has it today, hence rising sea levels for example, were easy to avoid. Animals just moved to a bit higher ground.
      You will admit that moving Miami or NYC to higher ground wouldn't be an easy task.
      Next, slow climate changes allow life and the environment to adjust slowly to the new conditions.There might be adaptations, migrations,etc.
      However, fast changes in climate, and that's what we are looking at, do not allow this kind of adjustments.
      Take coral for example. Corals live in a very narrow range of temperature. Only small increases in this temperature leads to coral bleaching, resulting in the death of the corals. Corals are slow growing organisms, hence any quick change in environmental conditions leaves them without any opportunity to adjust, let alone move to a place with better conditions.
  • Apr 22 2014: Climate Change or Climate Crisis.....I do not think it matters. What matters is WHO you tell this to. Currently, we adults, are debating it amongst ourselves......what to do? how to do it? who's to blame? Is it real?

    If you want to transform society, simply TELL children what IS the current situation on the planet with respect to climate change. They are the meek. And they will inherit the Earth. We adults would do well to stop coming up with ideas......for we are largely to blame for this mess. Do you know who discusses Geoengineering? Adults
  • Apr 21 2014: Re branding the moniker only sets up the persons or group for a fall when their science is inaccurate or numbers inflated. The chicken little "sky is falling" will tune one time attentive ears into deaf ones regarding important legislation. Keeping "change" intact indicates a plus or minus for improving the climate. For example due to climate change the U.S. govt is buying and phasing out coal plants. Or "coal plants are responsible for most of the climate change occurring in our atmosphere. Replacing the word change with crisis would be divisive. Place blame and encourage xenophobia for polluting countries like India and China, and the owners of coal plants in the U.S.
  • thumb
    Apr 15 2014: Harald,
    Absolutely, I believe you are correct Climate is an historical record of weather changes and as we all can agree.... weather changes.. Further, you acknowledged that fast changes can effect the world as we know it. True enough!
    But. you begin your comment with a charge of denial rhetoric. Excuse me? A very small number of comments have denied climate change. Most everyone agrees the climate is dynamic. Where the "Climate Crisis" falls off the track, is where some have use the ever changing climate to support a political agenda or two.
    PETA tell us that cows produce methane gas which can effect the atmosphere so we should stop eating cows, and added pigs and sheep. No agenda there!
    The anti oil crowd (there are a bunch) tell us that the use of fossil fuels release Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere and that could lead to Climate warming/change/ now crisis?/ that will have the oceans rising and the death of all those white fuzzy polar bears. This position goes from sublime to ridicules when in the process we should allow under developed nations to continue using fossil fuels while the developed nations pay for their privilege. The effect of course would lower the cost of fossil fuels (developed countries have really cut back on demand) thus giving the less developed countries a well deserved financial advantage they so deserve for being the less developed. Who supports all this fossil fuel curtailment? Why it's the UN, which is predominately composed of underdeveloped countries..
    Coincidence?.
    We should prepare for a drastic swing in global weather at least with some disaster planning. Next week the top may blow off Yellowstone National Park's super volcano; a disaster that could cause massive casualties in the entire northwest quarter of the USA. The resulting dust cloud could literally shut out the sun for a decade or more in which the resulting cooling of the earth could cause glaciers to form on a worldwide scale. That's the climate crisis!
    • thumb
      Apr 15 2014: Look, if you read the latest IPCC report there can hardly be any doubt that man made climate change exists.
      Taken that as a fact, the next question is what does it mean ? What impact will it have on us ?
      Just take the example of coral reefs I mentioned earlier.
      CO2 emission increased 40 % since pre industrialization. A third of this CO2 got absorbed into the oceans leading to ocean acidification in addition to ocean temperature increases.
      Corals not only happen to have only a relatively small tolerance for temperature changes but if ocean acidification reaches a certain threshold they won't be able to produce their calcium skeleton either. In other words, a more acidic and hotter4 ocean is lethal to corals.
      Now, Chris Kelly in his post didn't seem too concerned about corals, however this ignores the fact that coral reefs are extremely important in the aquatic food chain (highest bio diveristy of any aquatic ecosystem, shelter for marine life, hunting ground for larger fish, etc)
      Not only that, coral reefs, directly and indirectly are also a huge economic factor (e.g. tourism. Only the commercial value from coral reef fishery was about 100 million USD in 2001 (info from NOAA).
      I could go on and on about coral reefs, but anthropogenic climate change impacts much more than just coral reefs.
      The problem is, everything is inter connected. You disturb one system and many others will be disturbed as well. For example, destroying coral reefs leads to lower yield in fishery. Not only will that be economic trouble for those living off fishery but also consumers will face higher prices for seafood and probably replacing it with something else. What is the something else ? land animals ? ....you can follow this line of thought on your own I suppose.
      Ignoring the impact of climate change is either not understanding the issue or willingly putting the head in the sand. Both alternatives are bad.
      • thumb
        Apr 15 2014: Harald,

        What part of what I claimed..... the UN's IPCC are political hacks that are trying to use future climate forecasts which are bogus from the get go to scare people into reacting in a certain manner to shift wealth and resources to further their own agendas.... did I not make clear?
        • thumb
          Apr 15 2014: You are free to believe whatever you choose to. There are also people who believe that the moon landing was a hoax.
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2014: As are you. And I am sure they did land on the moon.... unless you are just being facetious.
  • thumb
    Apr 15 2014: Indeed it is climate crises. Climate change has been a norm as old as the earth. But deforestation, oil spills, CFC emissions and the depletion of the ozone layer and the alarming rate at which plant and animal spicies are being extinct; CLIMATE CRISES captures it better.
  • thumb
    Apr 15 2014: Indeed it is climate crises. Climate change has been a norm as old as the earth. But deforestation, oil spills, CFC emissions and the depletion of the ozone layer and the alarming rate at which plant and animal spicies are being extinct; CLIMATE CRISES captures it better.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Apr 15 2014: I will ask the next one I see.
      • thumb
        Apr 15 2014: Chris, you keep missing the point. The issue at hand is NOT change but the rate at which it occurs.
        Why don't you read the IPCC report to get a clearer understanding of the matter at hand ?
      • thumb
        Apr 15 2014: Chris, this has nothing to do with egocentric but is fact. You can keep ignoring facts as long as you want but that won't make them go away.
        Unfortunately, from your comments it becomes obvious that your understanding is....how shall I put it ?.....a bit shaky.
        Relationship between sun and planet ? I assume you refer to the coming reversal of the sun's polarity ? Well, in case you didn't know, that happens every 11 years, so hardly anything new to modern humans and it obviously has nothing to do with climate change.
        If you want to discuss a topic you should have at least some basic information. So, again, I strongly suggest you read the IPCC report and we can go from there.
        .
      • thumb
        Apr 15 2014: Chris, I know that you sent the magnetic shift links, that's why I mentioned them.
        And no, the magnetic shift has nothing to do with climate change, otherwise the climate would change every 11 years, which it obviously doesn't.
        CO2, which is a significant contributor to global warming increased drastically since industrialization. Can you tell me what that might have to do with any cosmic events or the 11 year magnetic reversal of the sun ?
        No ? I thought so.
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

  • Apr 15 2014: Our ability to avert the Crisis of Anthropogenic Global Warming is undermined by the expression "Climate Change." I wonder. Which expression is most used in other languages? In the Netherlands? Bangladesh?
  • thumb
    Apr 14 2014: Well said! Climate change is a term that demands no action be take.