Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change: Impacts & Responses

Abstract

Academia and science have been debating for years how to define the current climate crisis adequately. We have seen a terminology change from global warming to climate change, while multiple reports continue to suggest the two terms activate different sets of beliefs behaviors and perceptions of urgency regarding response towards the issue. Still, clear-eyed analysis and compelling research appear to fall short of the mark when it comes to 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 semantic shift needs to occur to address the current state of the climate, and this article aims to do so from a realist point of view. Climate change is more comparable to conflict than it is a condition. Political and moral philosophies emphasizing individual autonomy, equal opportunity, and the protection of individual rights, are arguably obstructing change in climate matter by encouraging a culture of privilege and leniency. In today’s dialogue, political correctness, data overload, and resentment overshadow truthfulness and straightforwardness. Considering the global population, scientists and politicians are the minority, and their conversation excludes the multitudes mostly responsible for the crisis. The problem and solution might well lay in the ability of these experts to reach the appropriate target audience.