How Confusing Climate Language Impedes Public Understanding
Complex climate talk hinders action—simpler language can help more people grasp environmental risks.
Effective communication is essential for generating widespread support and action on climate change. Yet, the use of technical language, scientific jargon, and ambiguous terms in climate discourse often alienates the public, leading to confusion rather than clarity. New research highlights that the gap between the language of scientists and the everyday understanding of non-experts is a significant barrier to tackling the climate crisis.
Why Climate Language Matters
Climate change presents complex challenges that require coordinated action at all levels of society, from governments and industries to communities and individuals. For people to engage in solutions and support policy changes, they need a clear understanding of what’s at stake and what actions are necessary. However, much of the communication from climate scientists and advocates relies on terms that are unfamiliar or misleading to the general public, undermining these efforts.
- Jargon and technical terms—such as “mitigation,” “carbon neutrality,” and “net zero”—are often not understood by non-scientists.
- Ambiguous language leads to varied interpretations, making key messages less impactful.
- Without clear language, public motivation for climate action suffers, and policy support weakens.
As Pete Ogden, Vice President for Energy, Climate, and the Environment at the UN Foundation, stresses, “We have to get better at communicating the dire threat posed by climate change if we want to bring more people into the fight for faster and greater action on climate. That starts by being able to translate the best science into language that all of us can understand.”
The Research: Assessing Public Comprehension
A collaborative research effort, led by behavioral scientists and qualitative interviewers, set out to measure how well Americans understand commonly used climate change terms. This work, significant in both purpose and scope, was conducted in partnership with the United Nations Foundation and the USC Dornsife Public Exchange.
Key Findings
- Many respondents struggled to define familiar-sounding phrases such as “carbon emissions,” “sustainable development,” and “climate mitigation.”
- Technical terminology used in policy documents and media reports often “sounds like you’re talking over people.”
- Scientific terminology is a barrier for those without specialized backgrounds, limiting their ability to participate meaningfully in climate debates and solutions.
These results echo broader findings that climate communication needs to be accessible to non-experts in order to be effective.
Critical Concepts That Cause Confusion
Certain climate-related terms are particularly prone to misunderstanding, often because they carry specific scientific meanings that differ from their everyday interpretations:
| Term | Scientific Meaning | Common Public Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Mitigation | Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and limiting warming | General damage control, not specifically emissions-related |
| Adaptation | Adjusting human or ecological systems to climate impacts | Quick fixes or minor adjustments |
| Net Zero | Balancing emissions produced and removed from the atmosphere | Zero emissions or no pollution at all |
| Sustainable Development | Development meeting present needs without compromising future generations | Eco-friendly or green initiatives, with little clarity |
| Carbon Footprint | Total greenhouse gas emissions caused directly/indirectly by an entity | Personal lifestyle choices without systemic context |
What others are reading
This mismatch between scientific and public interpretations makes it harder for people to grasp the urgency, scale, and required solutions for climate change.
Why Do These Miscommunications Happen?
Climate change research and advocacy evolved from academic and technical domains, where precision and specificity are essential. Over time, this language has been carried into the broader public sphere—through media, policy discussions, and advocacy campaigns—often without enough adaptation for general audiences. Several factors underpin this communication gap:
- Expert-centric communication: Scientists and policymakers tend to prioritize accuracy over accessibility.
- Media amplification: Journalists may pass on technical terms without defining them fully for their audiences.
- Mental models: People’s pre-existing beliefs and biases filter how they interpret new climate information, sometimes reinforcing misconceptions.
- Confirmation bias: Individuals often seek information that reinforces what they already believe and overlook corrective messages.
Consequently, many Americans feel excluded from climate conversations that seem tailor-made for insiders.
The Climate Communication Triangle
An effective climate communications ecosystem involves three primary stakeholders, each playing unique but interconnected roles:
- Climate Scientists: Generate research and data, often expecting institutions or journalists to disseminate their findings to the public.
- Climate Journalists: Translate science for mass audiences, curate factual information, and challenge both scientists and communicators to make their work more relevant.”
- The Public: Receives this information, with expectations of accurate, digestible content that enables them to engage in societal discussions and decision-making.
Each group carries distinct assumptions and responsibilities, but their shared goal should be to build broader public understanding and engagement on climate issues. However, the reality is that significant gaps remain in knowledge and expectations, resulting in miscommunication and disengagement.
The Risks of Misunderstanding
When the public does not fully understand common climate terms, the consequences can be far-reaching:
- Reduced policy support: People are less likely to back policies or regulations that they don’t understand.
- Slowed climate action: Confusion leads to inaction, complacency, or even backlash against proposed solutions.
- Misallocation of effort: Focusing on individual actions without understanding systemic solutions can limit the overall impact.
Research shows that unclear or ambiguous language can dilute the urgency conveyed by climate science, reducing the likelihood of behavior change.
How to Improve Public Climate Communication
Experts in health and environmental communication have outlined practical strategies to make climate information more understandable and impactful for general audiences:
- Simplify technical terms: Use clear, everyday language and explain concepts in familiar terms.
- Limit jargon: Replace or explain scientific terminology whenever possible.
- Use narrative storytelling: Relate climate risks and solutions through personal stories and concrete examples.
- Make information vivid and relatable: Use imagery, analogies, and local relevance to connect abstract concepts to people’s lives.
- Provide actionable steps: Offer specific solutions or calls to action, rather than only presenting problems.
- Leverage trusted messengers: Involve community leaders, health professionals, and peer advocates to improve credibility and relatability.
These strategies draw on behavioral science principles that indicate effective communication must engage people’s values, experiences, and decision-making processes, not just their intellect.
Key Recommendations from Behavioral Research
The USC Dornsife Public Exchange research team and other experts propose several actionable recommendations:
- Before communicating, assess the audience’s baseline understanding and identify misconceptions that could hinder new learning.
- Use analogies and metaphors—such as likening greenhouse gases to a blanket trapping heat—to clarify complex concepts.
- Balance scientific facts with emotionally compelling narratives that resonate with people’s lived experiences and concerns.
- Promote two-way communication, allowing the public to ask questions and get clarifications from experts and journalists.
- Continuously update and adapt messaging based on feedback and changing public perceptions.
Climate Communication in Practice: Real World Challenges
Despite the best intentions of scientists and communicators, climate discourse often still feels abstract, distant, or irrelevant to many individuals. There are several hurdles to address:
- Psychological distance: Many people perceive climate change as a far-off problem that affects others, not their own communities.
- Political and emotional baggage: Climate change discussions can trigger defensiveness or skepticism, especially when framed as polarizing or partisan issues.
- Lack of vividness: Generalized or statistical statements have less impact than local, story-driven, or visually concrete descriptions.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Why is climate communication so difficult for the general public?
Climate change involves complex science, and the language used is often technical, unfamiliar, or ambiguous for non-experts. Also, the urgency and relevance of climate risks may be obscured by psychological distance or pre-existing beliefs, making engagement and comprehension harder.
What are some examples of confusing climate terms?
Terms like “climate mitigation,” “adaptation,” and “net zero” are often misunderstood. For example, many people interpret “net zero” as meaning zero emissions, when it actually refers to balancing emissions produced with those removed from the atmosphere.
How does jargon affect support for climate policies?
If people don’t understand what policies address or require, they are less likely to support them or to advocate for change. Clearer, more relatable language increases public willingness to engage and act on climate issues.
How can communicators identify which terms the public doesn’t understand?
Audience research, such as surveys, interviews, or focus groups, helps identify knowledge gaps and common misconceptions. This enables communicators to tailor messages and clarify definitions as needed.
What are the most important steps to improve climate communication?
- Consistently use clear, simple language devoid of unnecessary jargon.
- Explain complex concepts with relatable analogies and local examples.
- Tell stories that emphasize human experiences and the real-world impacts of climate change.
- Encourage feedback and dialogue to ensure messages are reaching and resonating with diverse audiences.
Conclusion: The Road Ahead for Climate Messaging
As the climate crisis intensifies, clear communication is more essential than ever. Research consistently points to the need for simplification, contextualization, and emotional resonance in climate messaging. By bridging the language gap between science and the public, communicators can empower more people to understand, care, and act before it is too late.
References
- https://publicexchange.usc.edu/public-understanding-of-climate-change-terms/
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-04585-6
- https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/psychology-climate-change-communication.pdf
- https://hsph.harvard.edu/research/health-communication/resources/climate-communication-tips/
- https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ccam-explorer-2023/
- https://unfoundation.org/media/climate-change-communications-study-finds-that-common-scientific-terminology-confounds-public/
- https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/all/public-understanding-of-climate-change-has-grown-in-the-us/
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10810730.2024.2361566
- https://climatecommunication.yale.edu
Similar Articles
Read full bio of Sneha Tete
