Does the term “climate change” need to be rebranded? Has it been tuned out by the public. What would be a better alternative? In a survey I did in a subreddit, “Environmental Collapse” was the most popular choice? Do you agree? Or, do you have a better alternative?

Does the term “climate change” need to be rebranded? Has it been tuned out by the public. What would be a better alternative? In a survey I did in a subreddit, “Environmental Collapse” was the most popular choice? Do you agree? Or, do you have a better alternative?

What do you think?

12 Points
Upvote Downvote

agreealternativeAskAskMechangechoiceclimatecollapseEnvironmentalpopularpublicQuestion and Answerrebrandedsubredditsurveytermtuned

15 Comments

Leave a Reply

  1. The term climate change was already a rebrand by corporations as a friendlier euphemism for global warming. If the goal was to use it so that the public would be tuned out to the issue, then the campaign was certainly successful.

    I do like the term environmental collapse though. No need to mince words because that’s exactly what it is.

  2. I think the whole focus is wrong.

    Some people are overwhelmed by the magnitude of the issue.

    Some people just don’t care.

    Some people blame “giant mega corporations.”

    Some people don’t believe it is real.

    Some people blame the government.

    But all these people feel helpless/insignificant.

    The focus needs to empower people to be better stewards of our environment, not out of control mass consumers of resources.

  4. It can be rebranded to infinity; there will always be a segment of the population that refuses to believe it and makes it a political issue. “Climate change” was already a rebranding from “global warming,” because anytime it was abnormally cold, the science deniers would joke, “so much for that global warming, hurr durr.”

    After the rebrand to “climate change,” those same folks would then argue that, “the climate always changes.”

    So imo it really doesn’t matter. There will always be people who refuse to accept it.

  8. I believe those of us who want to see the environment healed need to rethink our approach. There’s too many authoritarian viewpoints in climate activism. Too much talk of arresting/killing people for denying climate change or eating meat

  10. It’s not a branding issue, it’s a messaging one. The most vocal proponents of “crisis” messaging are also the most consistently against any expedient solution. Namely, nuclear.

    It will take 50-100 years to replace the electrical infrastructure we have with distributed renewables and the required redundant power storage systems. This isn’t a “we don’t have the tech” problem, it’s a “when you build 1,000,000 complex things, it takes time and energy” problem. We have the perfect answer, a zero carbon high density fuel. The largest carbon emitters all have nuclear weapons or nuclear plants, any proliferation concerns are moot.

    What’s more perfect is we have maybe about that much easily accessible fuel for nuclear so market forces alone will push a shift from nuclear to renewables, over a much more digestible timeline.

    Until climate change lobbyists embrace nuclear energy as the interim solution, they look unbelievably naive or biased towards their tech of choice.

  11. I like “environmental collapse” more. But I don’t think rebranding will do anything. Deniers will still deny and call it another overblown attempt to fearmonger. And plenty of people just go “oh, yes, this is damaging the environment” but don’t have the urgency or knowledge to make substantive changes.

    The only way for people to get on board and do something sooner rather than later is if they are forced to. By the government, specifically.

  15. What happens when the climate does change? And Humanity stops. After the food war, then what? Earth and nature will win in the end and the balance will be restored. My advice is don’t have kids and enjoy yourself.

Leave a Reply