Abstract

Academia and science have been debating for years how to define and convey the current climate crisis adequately. The world has seen a terminology change from global warming to climate change, action, and emergency, while several reports suggest these terms activate different sets of beliefs, behaviors, and perceptions of urgency regarding response toward the issue. Still, clear-eyed analysis and compelling research appear to fall short of the mark with modification of human behavior and habit concerning the environment. There is little room or time left to continue crafting politically sensitive lexicons. What is clear now is that a paradigm shift needs to occur in communicating the state of the climate, and this article aims to do so through the lenses of pragmatic realism and psychology. In today’s dialogue, political correctness, data overload, and resentment overshadow truthfulness and straightforwardness. Political and moral philosophies emphasizing individual autonomy, equal opportunity, and the protection of individual rights are arguably obstructing change in climate matters by encouraging a culture of privilege and leniency. Considering the global population, scientists and politicians are the minority, and their conversation excludes the multitudes responsible for the crisis whose roles are crucial in addressing the threat. This analysis proposes that a key setback in this pervasive subject resides in the ability of experts to capture and influence a global audience. Climate change is a social dilemma, thus only social change can truly diminish the current environmental threat. Because climate change is a wicked problem, the argument for a multidisciplinary approach to the topic is deliberated throughout.