![\"\"](\"https:\/\/2bgreener.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/IMG_4684-2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI 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.<\/p>\n
- \n
- \u201cWe know we have a fight ahead of us\u201d. <\/b> I don\u2019t know about you, but I am not up for fighting<\/em>, 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\u2019re in or you\u2019re out regarding climate, the fact is you\u2019re in. This work, these transitions, affect everyone\u2026
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/2bgreener.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Cheadle-2-1-300x225.jpg\")
<\/a><\/li>\n- \u201cImpact\u201d.<\/b>\u00a0 <\/span>We keep talking about impacts but we rarely clarify if the impacts are beneficial or detrimental.<\/em> 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 \u201cimpact\u201d is something we seek or when it is something we must mitigate or avoid, but we are risking confusion for many.
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/2bgreener.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/IMG_4679-2-300x225.jpg\")
<\/a><\/li>\n- \u201cWhen, Who, How\u2026are we going to fix climate\u201d <\/b>– This is the worst in my mind.<\/em> A key point in creating system transition and mind shift is to get away from any notion of \u201cfixing\u201d 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.<\/li>\n
- Car-Culture-centric phrases<\/b>. This one is more subtle and prevalent.<\/em> 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\u2019re in it for the long haul, we need to push the pedal to the metal, honk if you are reducing carbon (irony!)\u2026I 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.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n
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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
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:<\/p>\n
\u00a0– Instead of a fight, we have a journey ahead of us<\/em>, or we have a mountain to climb<\/em>. 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.<\/p>\n
\u00a0– 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.<\/p>\n
- \u201cImpact\u201d.<\/b>\u00a0 <\/span>We keep talking about impacts but we rarely clarify if the impacts are beneficial or detrimental.<\/em> 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 \u201cimpact\u201d is something we seek or when it is something we must mitigate or avoid, but we are risking confusion for many.