by

Hannah Sizelove 

Communications Associate, Arc Initiatives

What is the meaning of the terms such as Climate Change, Environmental Justice, Resilience or Conservation?

In what context should these terms be evoked? Anyone working on climate, energy or environmental policy has witnessed the constant conflict and negotiation around the terminology we use to discuss these issues — this post is no exception.

Whether casually over coffee or in formal discussion, our words matter at every stage of negotiation. Like the solutions being negotiated, the phrases we use are designed to shape reality and imagine the future. These phrases frame the discussion. For example, are we talking about the climate crisis, climate change, or an issue of economic stability? Is this framed as a question of public health or environmental injustice? What do our words say about the ideas we are bringing into negotiation discussions? The terms and phrases we use signal whose perspectives, voices, and values are being heard, prioritized, and legitimized. They establish the level of urgency and shape what the final, real-world impacts actually look like.

No matter the specific issue at stake, developing clear, accessible, and community-informed messaging that reflects on-the-ground needs is a critical foundation when working to reduce conflict and create policies that last. Finding this common ground helps to ensure the nuanced negotiations that go into defining these terms – not to mention the progress on policies that have been a long-time in the making – aren’t erased in a harsh whiplash effect as policies move across different stages and parties. 

Actively seeking input on messaging from a wide range of impacted community members, businesses, scientists, academics, local leaders, experts – and everyone in between – is key. A negotiator should be aware of how different stakeholders are talking about the issue at hand. Before negotiations begin, the leader should consider who is the best messenger to present different values-based arguments during negotiations, such as topics of economic stability versus public health inequities.

Furthermore, local communities, particularly frontline and marginalized communities, must be at the negotiating table and genuinely amplified in a way that is not extractive, but driving the conversations and language for policies that are ultimately meant to serve them. Bringing in more voices enables negotiators to expand broad words, such as “conservation,” to encompass more diverse lived experiences and communities, especially those who have been historically excluded. 

Any policy or project we work on must reflect the nuanced values, intersectional identities, and specific needs of the communities it is designed to support. Being intentional about the words we use to think, ideate, and negotiate on climate and environmental issues is at the core of co-designing effective, lasting, community-driven policy.