Language to Power Our Journey (Greenbuild 2024)

I am energized from seeing friends and getting needed hugs, inspired by the vast growth and depth especially in embodied carbon awareness, and frustrated about the continual use of disengaging language.

I just got home from Philadelphia and attending Greenbuild 2024. I am incredibly pleased I got to attend. I’m sending out a BIG and heartfelt thank you to Barbra BatShalom and her ingenious work on the BuildingEase workflow platform, focused on material information access and procurements (you should check it out).

I am posting to talk about some of the language I heard at Greenbuild, language that is causing friction in my brain and in our efforts to reach greater audiences and increase participation in vital climate action.

1. “We know we have a fight ahead of us”. I don’t know about you, but I am not up for fighting, and even if I were, we will not create a systems shift with a mind set of conflict or us/them. When we use the language of war, we unintentionally make some people our enemies. We do know there are bad actors out there, but we cannot risk alienating anyone who has not already self-selected as an enemy of climate transition! As Don Cheadle said at the Keynote, whether you say you’re in or you’re out regarding climate, the fact is you’re in. This work, these transitions, affect everyone…
2. “Impact”.  We keep talking about impacts but we rarely clarify if the impacts are beneficial or detrimental. Every action we take has an impact. In one session we learned about the Common Material Framework, which is brilliant and is creating alignment across many rating and guidance systems as well as in tools, such as BuildingEase, to identify the aggregated impacts we seek (these would be beneficial impacts). The discussion continued and talked about the impact of toxins (negative), the impact of CO2e emissions (negative at current levels), and the impact of working toward circularity (positive). People in-the-know will usually understand when “impact” is something we seek or when it is something we must mitigate or avoid, but we are risking confusion for many.
3. “When, Who, How…are we going to fix climate” – This is the worst in my mind. A key point in creating system transition and mind shift is to get away from any notion of “fixing” anything. It is a falsity and I am not saying this to be depressing. The idea of finding a (singular) solution or fixing this problem is one of our most detrimental messages, because it negates the need for every action at every level over a long timeframe. It also sets aside the recognition that we must adapt to a wildly and widely changing climate, now.
4. Car-Culture-centric phrases. This one is more subtle and prevalent. So much of our language is based on car-centric terminology: how do we drive change, this is where the rubber meets the road, we have a long road ahead of us, we’re in it for the long haul, we need to push the pedal to the metal, honk if you are reducing carbon (irony!)…I believe we need to begin to slowly scrub some of these terms out of our language if we are to move society back into community engagement and people-first thinking.

I believe the transition we need to engage in, if we are to achieve significant climate action, will be sped by our intentional language shift.

I have a few suggestions, and I welcome you to add to my list as well as bring me new ideas to explore as I evolve my own language:

 – Instead of a fight, we have a journey ahead of us, or we have a mountain to climb. Both are much more inviting with the added bonus of implying moments of discovery and awe, team effort, and need for a longer time-view. And neither requires a fist fight.

 – Clarity on the positive or negative aspects of impact. I tend to use the terms co-benefit or co-burden, but I have recently learned that co-benefit is a term with a specific connotation in policy work, so I also need to refine my word choice. Simply saying positive impact or negative impact would be much clearer. We want to have positive impact in the world.

 – This one is harder to simply swap out, but I know from being in the work for 25+ years that “fix” is a flat out bad language choice. Maybe what we need to say instead of “fix climate” is something along the lines of engage with climate actions or maybe even discover our role in the work ahead. This is not a one-off grade in a test, or a flat tire on my bicycle. It is a long and complex process that everyone can bring value to!

– Car-centric terms? I don’t have a direct answer for this. It is a newer awareness for me and I am simply seeking to point it out so others will be aware and maybe make some simple language shifts. I saw two billboards recently, advocating for kinder idioms. One was “many ways to peel a potato” instead of the saying “many ways to skin a cat”. The other was “feed two birds with one scone” instead of “kill two birds with one stone”. The scone one is much better than what I’ve been trying to use, which was something along the lines of kill thousands of ticks with one possum (yeah, I know)…but I also have concerns about feeding wildlife people food, even the good stuff like a yummy scone.

It’s not going to be simple to make a language shift. Even the title of this blog leaned at first toward the car-centric, using “fuel” instead of “power”. I believe the transition we need for significant climate action will be sped by our language shift, and then supported by deeper engagement with people outside the building industry. We’re getting there, and the journey is much needed. I hope to see you on the path!

Jodi

Still working on being greener…