What do you think?
Rate this book
The Language of Climate Politics: Fossil-Fuel Propaganda and How to Fight It
A groundbreaking investigation into the propaganda justifying the fossil-fuel economy, The Language of Climate Politics offers readers powerful new ways to talk about the climate crisis that will help create transformative change.
"If you want to understand the climate crisis and you only have time to read one book, this should be it." - Kieran Setiya, author of Life is Hard
"A revelatory study...It's a breath of fresh air." Publishers' Weekly Starred Review
In an illuminating analysis, Dr. Genevieve Guenther shows that the climate debate is not, in fact, neatly polarized, with Republicans obstructing climate action and Democrats advancing climate solutions. Partisans on the right and the left often repeat the same fossil-fuel talking points, and this repetition produces a centrist consensus upholding the status quo, even as global heating accelerates.
Weaving this analysis through fascinating critical histories of the terms that dominate the language of climate politics?the words we, alarmist, cost, growth, "India and China," innovation, and resilience?Dr. Guenther shows how this consensus is established. Fossil-fuel interests weaponize the discourses of science, economics, and activism, co-opting and twisting climate language to help greenwash their plans for ongoing extraction. But all too often climate scientists, economists, and even advocates will unwittingly echo the false and dangerous assumptions of their supposed political opponents. This apparent agreement between foes, filtered through the news media, not only influences our common-sense yet mistaken views about the climate crisis but also enables powerful decisionmakers to justify the corporate and policy actions that threaten us all. Revealing this dynamic, Guenther shows how to transform it.
Ultimately, The Language of Climate Politics is an inspiring call to arms, a book that equips readers with powerful new terms that will enable them to fight more effectively for a livable future.
"If you want to understand the climate crisis and you only have time to read one book, this should be it." - Kieran Setiya, author of Life is Hard
"A revelatory study...It's a breath of fresh air." Publishers' Weekly Starred Review
In an illuminating analysis, Dr. Genevieve Guenther shows that the climate debate is not, in fact, neatly polarized, with Republicans obstructing climate action and Democrats advancing climate solutions. Partisans on the right and the left often repeat the same fossil-fuel talking points, and this repetition produces a centrist consensus upholding the status quo, even as global heating accelerates.
Weaving this analysis through fascinating critical histories of the terms that dominate the language of climate politics?the words we, alarmist, cost, growth, "India and China," innovation, and resilience?Dr. Guenther shows how this consensus is established. Fossil-fuel interests weaponize the discourses of science, economics, and activism, co-opting and twisting climate language to help greenwash their plans for ongoing extraction. But all too often climate scientists, economists, and even advocates will unwittingly echo the false and dangerous assumptions of their supposed political opponents. This apparent agreement between foes, filtered through the news media, not only influences our common-sense yet mistaken views about the climate crisis but also enables powerful decisionmakers to justify the corporate and policy actions that threaten us all. Revealing this dynamic, Guenther shows how to transform it.
Ultimately, The Language of Climate Politics is an inspiring call to arms, a book that equips readers with powerful new terms that will enable them to fight more effectively for a livable future.
273 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 10, 2024
60 people are currently reading
2934 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
March 23, 2025
Well worth reading! Indeed, I should have read it sooner (particularly because I bought a while back).
Clear and accessible, compelling, chock full of good points and anecdotes and thoughts and suggestions, and backed up by plentiful (and helpful) endnotes, I'm pleased I finally read it, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. But more than anything, it made me think (constructively) about how I'll be talking and writing about climate change going forward.
If you spend a lot of time working or reading or thinking about climate change, I'd encourage you to buy this, read it (or at least move it to the top of the stack), and recommend it others. Having said that, while it's gratifying to read a book that frequently references other works you've read (you know that pleasant head-nodding pleasure of bias confirmation ... mumbling to yourself as you read ... uh huh, ... yup... that's right ... good point ... nicely said ... oooh, that's a good turn of phrase, ... ah, that's a really good anecdote, ... indeed, ... yes, exactly... ... anyway, you get the idea), one does wonder if the book simply made me feel better (as opposed to, I dunno, Andrew Boyd's I Want a Better Catastrophe: Navigating the Climate Crisis with Grief, Hope, and Gallows Humor) or if I actually learned something. For me, it was pretty easy: This was well worth my time. I really appreciated the author's repackaging of (important and) familiar issues, and I'm confident I'm going to use many of her suggestions, anecdotes, and ideas going forward.
For everyone else, it's a more complicated calculus. One of the challenging thing about climate change - and getting folks to think about it or reexamine their assumptions or progress up the learning curve or, OK ... care ... or engage or change their opinions (OK, let's not get carried away) is that there's no single solution, and, as is often the case, folks come to the issue from very different places. Which begs the question: is this a good place to start?
Other than conceding that I don't know, I plan to put this on the shelf near - and recommend it in the same vein as, hmmm - Michael Mann's The New Climate War and, and maybe this is a stretch, but also John Cook's (frankly, sublime) Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change: How to Understand and Respond to Climate Science Deniers. And, as frequently as I recommend Hayhoe's Saving Us, there are many things that made me appreciate this even more (although I guessing that it probably does make sense for most readers to internalize Hayhoe's talk about it message before diving into this).
Reader's lament: the timing of book projects and the publishing industry are what they are, but it was frustrating, maddening, and, at times, jarring to read this after the 2024 election, the 2025 inauguration, and the recent horror show of the EPA administrator gleefully aspiring to “lower the cost of buying a car, heating a home and running a business” rather than, I dunno, protecting the environment, acknowledging the existential risk of climate change and (geez, I feel foolish for suggesting it, but) being part of the solution rather than the problem. But that's not the author's fault. Indeed, I'm assuming the timing was originally calculated to help ensure a different outcome in the election, but, alas, that's now water over the dam.
I really enjoyed the book. I have pages of notes that I expect to return to. I plan to recommend the book (and discuss it with my students).
My hat's off the author!
Clear and accessible, compelling, chock full of good points and anecdotes and thoughts and suggestions, and backed up by plentiful (and helpful) endnotes, I'm pleased I finally read it, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. But more than anything, it made me think (constructively) about how I'll be talking and writing about climate change going forward.
If you spend a lot of time working or reading or thinking about climate change, I'd encourage you to buy this, read it (or at least move it to the top of the stack), and recommend it others. Having said that, while it's gratifying to read a book that frequently references other works you've read (you know that pleasant head-nodding pleasure of bias confirmation ... mumbling to yourself as you read ... uh huh, ... yup... that's right ... good point ... nicely said ... oooh, that's a good turn of phrase, ... ah, that's a really good anecdote, ... indeed, ... yes, exactly... ... anyway, you get the idea), one does wonder if the book simply made me feel better (as opposed to, I dunno, Andrew Boyd's I Want a Better Catastrophe: Navigating the Climate Crisis with Grief, Hope, and Gallows Humor) or if I actually learned something. For me, it was pretty easy: This was well worth my time. I really appreciated the author's repackaging of (important and) familiar issues, and I'm confident I'm going to use many of her suggestions, anecdotes, and ideas going forward.
For everyone else, it's a more complicated calculus. One of the challenging thing about climate change - and getting folks to think about it or reexamine their assumptions or progress up the learning curve or, OK ... care ... or engage or change their opinions (OK, let's not get carried away) is that there's no single solution, and, as is often the case, folks come to the issue from very different places. Which begs the question: is this a good place to start?
Other than conceding that I don't know, I plan to put this on the shelf near - and recommend it in the same vein as, hmmm - Michael Mann's The New Climate War and, and maybe this is a stretch, but also John Cook's (frankly, sublime) Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change: How to Understand and Respond to Climate Science Deniers. And, as frequently as I recommend Hayhoe's Saving Us, there are many things that made me appreciate this even more (although I guessing that it probably does make sense for most readers to internalize Hayhoe's talk about it message before diving into this).
Reader's lament: the timing of book projects and the publishing industry are what they are, but it was frustrating, maddening, and, at times, jarring to read this after the 2024 election, the 2025 inauguration, and the recent horror show of the EPA administrator gleefully aspiring to “lower the cost of buying a car, heating a home and running a business” rather than, I dunno, protecting the environment, acknowledging the existential risk of climate change and (geez, I feel foolish for suggesting it, but) being part of the solution rather than the problem. But that's not the author's fault. Indeed, I'm assuming the timing was originally calculated to help ensure a different outcome in the election, but, alas, that's now water over the dam.
I really enjoyed the book. I have pages of notes that I expect to return to. I plan to recommend the book (and discuss it with my students).
My hat's off the author!
Read
June 21, 2024Review of ‘The Language of Climate Politics’ by Genevieve Guenther
Although Francis Bacon acknowledged that ‘Knowledge is Power’, Dr Genevieve Guenther contends in this new release that instead, ‘Language is power.’ Language is the vehicle for creating ideologies and belief systems and those who control the narrative, can usually control the level of action and response. A truism that fossil- fuel companies have followed in their efforts to protect their profits over planetary pollution. Language has always been used as a ‘call to arms’ and Dr Guenther believes that this battlefield of what is accepted as the ‘norm’ needs to be rebuilt.
Guenther challenges the repeated talking points language of climate deniers, delayers and doomers and unpacks the shallow rhetoric to expose the reasons for the manipulation of language- often for financial gain. She illustrates how the fossil-fuel propaganda machine learned long ago that repetition of a key message over and over again can become an indoctrination chant. ‘Cost’, ‘Growth’, ‘India and China’, ‘Innovation’ and ‘Resilience’ have become linguistic weapons, where the simple mention of them can be enough to quell climate discussions.
Not any more. Guenther advises on strategies to counteract this polluting propaganda- which only serves itself- to empower those who need to become free from the spell of delay.
She notes, ‘Complicit people and institutions must be called out and encouraged to change. And the fossil-fuel industry must be fought, and the governments that support that industry must be replaced. But none of us will be effective in this if we think of climate change as something “we” are doing. To think of climate change as something that “we” are doing, instead of something we are being prevented from undoing, perpetuates the very ideology of the fossil-fuel economy we’re trying to transform.’ She argues that the ‘guilty collective’ ‘we’ does not exist, but instead is a distorted and dangerous fiction to hide the real actors responsible for climate change. She asks, ‘Who is this “we”? Does it include the nearly 700 million people who live on less than $2.15 a day? Does it include the indigenous peoples who have been living in harmony with their ecosystems for generations? Does it include our children?’
Guenther points the figure at the ‘you’ and ‘they’ robustly in this text and does not shy away from ‘calling out’ the polluting companies for what they are. ‘Since at least the 1970s, coal, oil, and gas companies have known that their products would cause the planet to heat up, undermining the climate that enabled civilization to flourish over the past 10,000 years’. The acknowledgment of the reality of time was landed squarely on by Guenther. By 2100, pathway estimates suggest that globally we could be living in a 2.5-2.8 degree world (compared to the pre-industrial era).
This is the world we are leaving to our children.
A child born today would be 76 years old at the turn of the next century- a world in which living conditions could be unrecognisable for billions. ‘At 1.5°C of warming, about 14 percent of humanity will likely be exposed to life-threatening heat on a regular basis. At 2°C that number more than doubles, rising to 37 percent, or approximately three billion people.’
‘The year 2100 may seem like a long time away, but it isn’t. My own son was born in 2010. His life will play out across this century, when the world will either halt global heating at a manageable level or unravel. All this is no longer about “future generations,” but the families we have in our homes today.
As the IPCC said in its 2023 report: “Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.”
The world can be otherwise.’
We need to use language to create this future imagined world- language which will galvanise people into action, language which will create effective and drastic climate policy, and language which could ultimately save lives around the world.
Being alarmed is an appropriate response
Guenther acknowledges that for too long, we have allowed others to dominate the climate conversations and climate narrative, and that our collective silence has been a marker of group identity and not wanting to stand out from the group. As a result, the fossil-fuel propaganda machine has filled that silence.
‘If you’re not used to doing it, talking about climate change can be very difficult. It can feel risky or socially awkward, as if by bringing up the climate crisis you’re betraying social norms against disturbing other people. Well, you are. But that’s ok. There is a time for speaking out, and that time is now.’
Guenther warns against the fear of the label of the term ‘alarmist’ and powerfully argues that being alarmed at the impacts from human caused climate change, is a normal, appropriate and reasonable response. Taking up this label when it is hurled by propagandists and delayers is both a sane and a safe option.
‘It is perfectly appropriate to be alarmed. Given everything scientists are saying, given everything already happening at warming even below 1.5°C, it is reasonable—indeed, it is sensible—to feel frightened. Fear of what may happen if we do not force policy- and decision-makers to end their support for fossil energy is not a symptom of alarmism. On the contrary. It’s a sign that you are willing to look at the danger head-on and not look away. It is a sign of courage. You should talk about it as such.’
She chronicles how climate scientists themselves need to walk the linguistic tightrope and the dangers of scientific language deliberately being mis-used by bad actors to suggest that there is doubt. Two clear examples are the use of the ‘uncertainty’ and indeed the word ‘confident’, which in scientific evaluation carry a particular meaning different from normal discourse- a gap which fossil-fuel propagandists have driven a wedge through. Scientists, of course, are also communicators and are acutely aware that their evaluations may lead to a paralysis of action if people fall into the mis-understanding that ‘it is too late’ or ‘unsolvable’. It is not the scientific evidence that is in question, it becomes how this information is communicated and presented.
Guenther boldly states, ‘To preserve our safety, the world must stop burning fossil fuels now. Not in our grandchildren’s or even our children’s lifetimes.
Now.
One of the most powerful weapons you have is your voice. End the climate silence that gives fossil-energy interests cover. Talk about the climate crisis as much as you can.’
The chimera of Cost and Growth
Guenther forensically breaks down the twin linguistic charges of ‘cost’ and ‘growth’. She highlights that the biggest financial ‘losers’ are actually the fossil-fuel companies themselves and their profits, which they are trying desperately to defend, at all costs- even to the stage of unliveable conditions for billions- as long as it is ‘them over there’ who are impacted. ‘To meet even a 2°C target, a third of oil reserves, almost half of methane gas reserves, and over 80 percent of current coal reserves must remain in the ground. This unburnable carbon is currently valued as high as $3.3 trillion’.
Guenther then notes the dramatic drop in price of renewable technologies, ‘Onshore wind power is 40 percent cheaper than it was a decade ago. And solar is now the cheapest source of electricity in history.’
The narrative that the economic growth of fossil-fuel companies should be allowed to continue at the expense of living conditions for billions is exposed as the self- protection myth that it is. That somehow those responsible for the situation should be allowed to continue their behaviour and actions is completely unpalatable.
‘The idea that economic growth is itself a climate-change solution, a form of environmental protection that will shield the prosperous from climate devastation. This belief is so bipartisan, so ubiquitous, that it’s not quite accurate to call it propaganda. It’s best understood as a myth.’
A myth that is based on a lack of evidence and facts, but is echoed so repetitively, that it appears to be a crucial element in the lack of change.
‘By how much, and for how long, will economic growth continue if the world continues to burn fossil fuels and emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? There is surprisingly little research on this seemingly crucial topic.’
If anyone argues that fossil-fuel polluting companies should be allowed to continue the actions that brought us to the danger of planetary tipping points, they need to check their entitled, self-serving, perspective at the door.
Responsibility for emissions
It is impressive how Guenther unpacks the misleading narrative that has promulgated that ‘my country will only act, once we see country X acting.’ China is often the manufactured elephant in the fossil-fuel propaganda, where the fact that China is only responsible for 14% of historical emissions is stridently finger-pointed at. What the accusers chose to ignore is America’s over 25% contribution to historical emissions. For the US not to be a global leader of climate action until China/ India/ Germany acts, is the petulant argument of a child not getting their own way anymore.
‘Yet the United States has remained committed not just to sustaining, but to expanding fossil-fuel production, while blaming the world’s lack of climate progress on India’s and China’s actions.’
China’s world leading renewable programme has allowed it to dominate the market and create economic growth, demonstrating that the two can go hand in hand easily and comfortably. ‘China has become the world’s foremost producer and distributor of clean-energy technology.’
Waiting to see who will ‘take the lead’ on the necessary climate action only freezes global action and it is worth remembering that pollution knows no borders.
Global average temperatures are rising. Global readings of CO2 are rising.
Technological salvation?
Guenther then points to the next step in the polluters’ hand book- having technology as the miraculous saviour, without any behavioural change from fossil-fuel companies. Carbon capture and storage, carbon dioxide removal, direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage have now become the new totems of propagandist worship.
‘When you talk about carbon removal, the most important thing is to guard against the false narrative that CDR is a miracle that can decarbonize fossil fuels and restore the climate, if only the world would deploy it wisely. False promises about CDR are propagandistic: they misrepresent reality to sustain an oppressive power—here the power of oil and gas companies—that is harming the world.’
It is a deliberate act to talk about these technologies and describe them as ‘proven’ in order to sustain the life span of fossil-fuel companies- as if business as normal can continue. Worth noting here, as Guenther sharply points out, ‘This technology remains at a nascent stage of development. As of 2023, only around twenty-seven DAC plants existed worldwide, and together, running for a whole year, they captured less than a minute of annual global carbon dioxide emissions.’ So when hearing claims of these technologies as saviours, it is always worth asking how scaled up they can be and what impact they demonstrably have- if those questions can’t be answered by advocates of the fossil-fuel companies, then you know something is amiss.
Transforming the world
The issue is simple. We are being polluted and the polluters want to keep doing this, so they can make more profit.
‘The world must phase out fossil fuels. Governments must wind down the fossil-energy industry, and build up a limited system of carbon removal without their influence, in order to have any chance to achieve net zero, halt global heating, and secure an ongoing future.’
Language can create. Language can empower. Language can change the world.
It is past time that the linguistic narrative is reclaimed by those who want to create a liveable world for people living now and for those still to inherit the world of our actions. ‘But always remember: this is a battle against the forces of destruction to save something of this achingly beautiful, utterly miraculous world for our children. The fossil-fuel industry and the governments that support it are literally colluding to stop you from transforming the world. They are trying to maintain the fossil-fuel economy. As for me—and as for you, here with me at the end of this journey, this book—I will say: we are against them, and we are going to fight for dear life.’
Dedicated to the future
It is no sin to have tried and failed, but it is a terrible sin to not even try- knowing what we know now. The dedication to this book could easily be missed, but for me, it contains the heart of the linguistic battle that lies in front of us. We are building a world for the future through our words, ideologies, policies and actions. What that world looks like by 2100 is up to us all.
‘The Language of Climate Politics’ is dedicated to our beautiful son, Teddy, who is the joy of my life.
With all my heart, I hope this book helps create the future that he, and every child in the world, deserves, but no matter what happens I want him to know that his mother tried.’
Although Francis Bacon acknowledged that ‘Knowledge is Power’, Dr Genevieve Guenther contends in this new release that instead, ‘Language is power.’ Language is the vehicle for creating ideologies and belief systems and those who control the narrative, can usually control the level of action and response. A truism that fossil- fuel companies have followed in their efforts to protect their profits over planetary pollution. Language has always been used as a ‘call to arms’ and Dr Guenther believes that this battlefield of what is accepted as the ‘norm’ needs to be rebuilt.
Guenther challenges the repeated talking points language of climate deniers, delayers and doomers and unpacks the shallow rhetoric to expose the reasons for the manipulation of language- often for financial gain. She illustrates how the fossil-fuel propaganda machine learned long ago that repetition of a key message over and over again can become an indoctrination chant. ‘Cost’, ‘Growth’, ‘India and China’, ‘Innovation’ and ‘Resilience’ have become linguistic weapons, where the simple mention of them can be enough to quell climate discussions.
Not any more. Guenther advises on strategies to counteract this polluting propaganda- which only serves itself- to empower those who need to become free from the spell of delay.
She notes, ‘Complicit people and institutions must be called out and encouraged to change. And the fossil-fuel industry must be fought, and the governments that support that industry must be replaced. But none of us will be effective in this if we think of climate change as something “we” are doing. To think of climate change as something that “we” are doing, instead of something we are being prevented from undoing, perpetuates the very ideology of the fossil-fuel economy we’re trying to transform.’ She argues that the ‘guilty collective’ ‘we’ does not exist, but instead is a distorted and dangerous fiction to hide the real actors responsible for climate change. She asks, ‘Who is this “we”? Does it include the nearly 700 million people who live on less than $2.15 a day? Does it include the indigenous peoples who have been living in harmony with their ecosystems for generations? Does it include our children?’
Guenther points the figure at the ‘you’ and ‘they’ robustly in this text and does not shy away from ‘calling out’ the polluting companies for what they are. ‘Since at least the 1970s, coal, oil, and gas companies have known that their products would cause the planet to heat up, undermining the climate that enabled civilization to flourish over the past 10,000 years’. The acknowledgment of the reality of time was landed squarely on by Guenther. By 2100, pathway estimates suggest that globally we could be living in a 2.5-2.8 degree world (compared to the pre-industrial era).
This is the world we are leaving to our children.
A child born today would be 76 years old at the turn of the next century- a world in which living conditions could be unrecognisable for billions. ‘At 1.5°C of warming, about 14 percent of humanity will likely be exposed to life-threatening heat on a regular basis. At 2°C that number more than doubles, rising to 37 percent, or approximately three billion people.’
‘The year 2100 may seem like a long time away, but it isn’t. My own son was born in 2010. His life will play out across this century, when the world will either halt global heating at a manageable level or unravel. All this is no longer about “future generations,” but the families we have in our homes today.
As the IPCC said in its 2023 report: “Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.”
The world can be otherwise.’
We need to use language to create this future imagined world- language which will galvanise people into action, language which will create effective and drastic climate policy, and language which could ultimately save lives around the world.
Being alarmed is an appropriate response
Guenther acknowledges that for too long, we have allowed others to dominate the climate conversations and climate narrative, and that our collective silence has been a marker of group identity and not wanting to stand out from the group. As a result, the fossil-fuel propaganda machine has filled that silence.
‘If you’re not used to doing it, talking about climate change can be very difficult. It can feel risky or socially awkward, as if by bringing up the climate crisis you’re betraying social norms against disturbing other people. Well, you are. But that’s ok. There is a time for speaking out, and that time is now.’
Guenther warns against the fear of the label of the term ‘alarmist’ and powerfully argues that being alarmed at the impacts from human caused climate change, is a normal, appropriate and reasonable response. Taking up this label when it is hurled by propagandists and delayers is both a sane and a safe option.
‘It is perfectly appropriate to be alarmed. Given everything scientists are saying, given everything already happening at warming even below 1.5°C, it is reasonable—indeed, it is sensible—to feel frightened. Fear of what may happen if we do not force policy- and decision-makers to end their support for fossil energy is not a symptom of alarmism. On the contrary. It’s a sign that you are willing to look at the danger head-on and not look away. It is a sign of courage. You should talk about it as such.’
She chronicles how climate scientists themselves need to walk the linguistic tightrope and the dangers of scientific language deliberately being mis-used by bad actors to suggest that there is doubt. Two clear examples are the use of the ‘uncertainty’ and indeed the word ‘confident’, which in scientific evaluation carry a particular meaning different from normal discourse- a gap which fossil-fuel propagandists have driven a wedge through. Scientists, of course, are also communicators and are acutely aware that their evaluations may lead to a paralysis of action if people fall into the mis-understanding that ‘it is too late’ or ‘unsolvable’. It is not the scientific evidence that is in question, it becomes how this information is communicated and presented.
Guenther boldly states, ‘To preserve our safety, the world must stop burning fossil fuels now. Not in our grandchildren’s or even our children’s lifetimes.
Now.
One of the most powerful weapons you have is your voice. End the climate silence that gives fossil-energy interests cover. Talk about the climate crisis as much as you can.’
The chimera of Cost and Growth
Guenther forensically breaks down the twin linguistic charges of ‘cost’ and ‘growth’. She highlights that the biggest financial ‘losers’ are actually the fossil-fuel companies themselves and their profits, which they are trying desperately to defend, at all costs- even to the stage of unliveable conditions for billions- as long as it is ‘them over there’ who are impacted. ‘To meet even a 2°C target, a third of oil reserves, almost half of methane gas reserves, and over 80 percent of current coal reserves must remain in the ground. This unburnable carbon is currently valued as high as $3.3 trillion’.
Guenther then notes the dramatic drop in price of renewable technologies, ‘Onshore wind power is 40 percent cheaper than it was a decade ago. And solar is now the cheapest source of electricity in history.’
The narrative that the economic growth of fossil-fuel companies should be allowed to continue at the expense of living conditions for billions is exposed as the self- protection myth that it is. That somehow those responsible for the situation should be allowed to continue their behaviour and actions is completely unpalatable.
‘The idea that economic growth is itself a climate-change solution, a form of environmental protection that will shield the prosperous from climate devastation. This belief is so bipartisan, so ubiquitous, that it’s not quite accurate to call it propaganda. It’s best understood as a myth.’
A myth that is based on a lack of evidence and facts, but is echoed so repetitively, that it appears to be a crucial element in the lack of change.
‘By how much, and for how long, will economic growth continue if the world continues to burn fossil fuels and emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? There is surprisingly little research on this seemingly crucial topic.’
If anyone argues that fossil-fuel polluting companies should be allowed to continue the actions that brought us to the danger of planetary tipping points, they need to check their entitled, self-serving, perspective at the door.
Responsibility for emissions
It is impressive how Guenther unpacks the misleading narrative that has promulgated that ‘my country will only act, once we see country X acting.’ China is often the manufactured elephant in the fossil-fuel propaganda, where the fact that China is only responsible for 14% of historical emissions is stridently finger-pointed at. What the accusers chose to ignore is America’s over 25% contribution to historical emissions. For the US not to be a global leader of climate action until China/ India/ Germany acts, is the petulant argument of a child not getting their own way anymore.
‘Yet the United States has remained committed not just to sustaining, but to expanding fossil-fuel production, while blaming the world’s lack of climate progress on India’s and China’s actions.’
China’s world leading renewable programme has allowed it to dominate the market and create economic growth, demonstrating that the two can go hand in hand easily and comfortably. ‘China has become the world’s foremost producer and distributor of clean-energy technology.’
Waiting to see who will ‘take the lead’ on the necessary climate action only freezes global action and it is worth remembering that pollution knows no borders.
Global average temperatures are rising. Global readings of CO2 are rising.
Technological salvation?
Guenther then points to the next step in the polluters’ hand book- having technology as the miraculous saviour, without any behavioural change from fossil-fuel companies. Carbon capture and storage, carbon dioxide removal, direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage have now become the new totems of propagandist worship.
‘When you talk about carbon removal, the most important thing is to guard against the false narrative that CDR is a miracle that can decarbonize fossil fuels and restore the climate, if only the world would deploy it wisely. False promises about CDR are propagandistic: they misrepresent reality to sustain an oppressive power—here the power of oil and gas companies—that is harming the world.’
It is a deliberate act to talk about these technologies and describe them as ‘proven’ in order to sustain the life span of fossil-fuel companies- as if business as normal can continue. Worth noting here, as Guenther sharply points out, ‘This technology remains at a nascent stage of development. As of 2023, only around twenty-seven DAC plants existed worldwide, and together, running for a whole year, they captured less than a minute of annual global carbon dioxide emissions.’ So when hearing claims of these technologies as saviours, it is always worth asking how scaled up they can be and what impact they demonstrably have- if those questions can’t be answered by advocates of the fossil-fuel companies, then you know something is amiss.
Transforming the world
The issue is simple. We are being polluted and the polluters want to keep doing this, so they can make more profit.
‘The world must phase out fossil fuels. Governments must wind down the fossil-energy industry, and build up a limited system of carbon removal without their influence, in order to have any chance to achieve net zero, halt global heating, and secure an ongoing future.’
Language can create. Language can empower. Language can change the world.
It is past time that the linguistic narrative is reclaimed by those who want to create a liveable world for people living now and for those still to inherit the world of our actions. ‘But always remember: this is a battle against the forces of destruction to save something of this achingly beautiful, utterly miraculous world for our children. The fossil-fuel industry and the governments that support it are literally colluding to stop you from transforming the world. They are trying to maintain the fossil-fuel economy. As for me—and as for you, here with me at the end of this journey, this book—I will say: we are against them, and we are going to fight for dear life.’
Dedicated to the future
It is no sin to have tried and failed, but it is a terrible sin to not even try- knowing what we know now. The dedication to this book could easily be missed, but for me, it contains the heart of the linguistic battle that lies in front of us. We are building a world for the future through our words, ideologies, policies and actions. What that world looks like by 2100 is up to us all.
‘The Language of Climate Politics’ is dedicated to our beautiful son, Teddy, who is the joy of my life.
With all my heart, I hope this book helps create the future that he, and every child in the world, deserves, but no matter what happens I want him to know that his mother tried.’
August 10, 2024
This is the best book I read in 2024 and I am absolutely obsessed with climate language after learning about fossil fuel propaganda latest tricks. What an amazing writing piece by Genevieve.
September 4, 2025
3.5 rounded up.
Some really good nuggets, but I feel like if you're interested, just ask me for my notes on it and save yourself the fluff in between.
Honestly was less about language and more about climate economic history, but I learned things!!
Some really good nuggets, but I feel like if you're interested, just ask me for my notes on it and save yourself the fluff in between.
Honestly was less about language and more about climate economic history, but I learned things!!
May 10, 2025
The Language of Climate Politics is a direct attack on Fossil Fuel interests and the propaganda they use to justify the fossil fuel economy; this economy, Guenther argues, is spun out of six key terms: Alarmist, cost, growth, India and china, innovation, and resilience.
Put another way, the narrative of FF interests goes like this:
“Yes, climate change is real, but calling it an existential threat is just alarmist — and anyway phasing out coal, oil, and gas would cost us too much. Human flourishing relies on the economic growth enabled by fossil fuels, so we need to keep using them and deal with climate change by fostering technological innovation and increasing our resilience. Besides, America should not act unilaterally on the climate crisis while emissions are rising in India and China.”
These talking points are repeated by both sides of the aisle, ultimately contributing to normalizing fossil fuel disinformation and making this propaganda the common-sense position. To actually secure a livable future, we must “dismantle and reframe the terms dominating the language of climate politics.”
The book is then divided into chapters by these six terms, showing how fossil fuel propaganda spins these terms and what we, as communicators, can do to reframe this language:
In Alarmist, Guenther describes how the fossil fuel industry framed those concerned about climate change as exaggerating, and instead frames the more pragmatic approach through lenses of techno optimism or luke warmism which accepts the reality of climate change but views warnings about its dangers as alarmist.
What comms can do: Deliver a message that makes it clear climate change will be catastrophic for everyone, steer the conversation to those in power doing what they can to stop the transition; and show how such a transition can bring a bunch of immediate benefits. And we must do so with an eye of mobilizing the alarmed into engaging in sustained, disruptive climate action.
In Cost, Guenther outlines how fossil fuel interests frame climate policy as a costly one that will hurt the economy and make everyone worse off. Countering this, she writes that “the costs of climate change are potentially infinite, and climate action is not a cost at all, but a social and economic windfall that will put money directly into Americans’ wallets.”
The false assumptions are that economic growth will continue at its previous rate even as the planet heats up; that growth is only marginally affected by climate damages; and that the cost of damages will be low.
What comms can do: Deliver a message that articulates how the cost of climate damages is lowballed (it will be large and devastating, using already existing examples of disasters), and that climate action is not a cost but an economic windfall that brings benefits and is affordable and safer than fossil fuels; we can also do well by not calling these costs but investments. In other words, we will be healthier and wealthier without fossil fuels.
In Growth, Guenther shows how fossil fuel interests justify their economy because of the fossil fuel connection to continued economic growth and that economic growth is itself a climate solution because it will shield the prosperous from climate devastation.
But this ideology relies on two unfounded dogmas: that tech can always substitute for nature and that wealthy societies have a nearly limitless capacity to adapt to global heating. Btu endless growth depends on the planet, specifically the arable land.
The ideology then underestimates climate impacts, as well as their impact on agriculture and thus the link to stability and growth. Crops failing leads to widespread social and political unrest, global conflict, and increased terrorism. And such disruptions are not limited to poorer nations.
What comms can do: Argue that it is quite likely that ruining the planet will also ruin the economy. “If it goes unchecked climate change will undermine the coupled human and ecological systems, like agriculture, that enable economic growth in the first place.”
Also: “Future progress relies not on our so-called mastery of nature, but on our acceptance that we are nature, and in destroying nature, we destroy ourselves.”
In India and China, Guenther circulates the misleading talking point that “so long as India and China continue to use fossil fuels, it won’t matter if the U.S. tries to halt global heating — any American effort will be futile.”
This talking point deflects America’s historical responsibility for climate change and sows hopelessness and cynicism among the electorate. It’s also wrong. China is leading on climate and cornering clean energy markets, giving it cultural supremacy and geopolitical power.
Guenther then delivers a quite thorough (and better yet understandable) summary of international climate politics and agreements and a constant theme of American stubbornness in trying to deflect responsibility or weaken agreements, especially considering America’s role in the climate crisis, its insistence on being a global leader, and its contradictory stance on not wanting to financially support climate-vulnerable nations (even though such support would be in U.S. self-interest).
What comms can do: Cite China’s enormous rate of clean energy deployment and describe the scope of its ambitious policies and how the U.S. has consistently obstructed international climate negotiations. By delivering clean energy solutions, China is also not so subtly pushing the narrative that authoritarianism is the form of governance best suited to resolve climate change.
On the other side of the coin, if China doesn't decarbonize, the world will have all the more reason for American leadership, which it could use to pressure China into phasing out fossil fuels through sanctions and treaties.
In Innovation, the idea is that we can keep burning fossil fuels because a technological innovation, code for carbon capture and storage or carbon dioxide removal, will bail us out. Conveniently, oil and gas companies position themselves to be the ones who can deliver on these technologies.
What comms can do: “Guard against the false narrative that CDR is a miracle that can decarbonize fossil fuels and restore the climate” because such tech cannot be relied on at massive scales and renewables are much, much cheaper. Instead, we should phase out fossil fuels, while simultaneously investing in innovative policies that nurture tech for industries like steel and agriculture that are tough to decarbonize.
In Resilience, Guenther argues that we should replace the term resilience with transformation, because the former implies that we can bounce back, elides the urgent need for systemic change, implies the climate crisis is occasional and temporary, implies that our previous state of systems was desirable to begin with, and allows conservatives to adopt pretence of taking climate action without addressing the threats of the fossil fuel economy.
“Committing to ending the fossil fuel system does something profound and personally valuable: it gives your life meaning. It turns you into living proof that the fossil fuel economy is not an expression of human nature, but a contingent way to distribute power. For here you are, a human being, fighting to distribute power differently… The fossil fuel industry and the governments that support it are literally colluding to stop you from transforming the world. They are trying to maintain the fossil fuel economy.”
This book is one step to fight against such propaganda and preserve a livable world.
Put another way, the narrative of FF interests goes like this:
“Yes, climate change is real, but calling it an existential threat is just alarmist — and anyway phasing out coal, oil, and gas would cost us too much. Human flourishing relies on the economic growth enabled by fossil fuels, so we need to keep using them and deal with climate change by fostering technological innovation and increasing our resilience. Besides, America should not act unilaterally on the climate crisis while emissions are rising in India and China.”
These talking points are repeated by both sides of the aisle, ultimately contributing to normalizing fossil fuel disinformation and making this propaganda the common-sense position. To actually secure a livable future, we must “dismantle and reframe the terms dominating the language of climate politics.”
The book is then divided into chapters by these six terms, showing how fossil fuel propaganda spins these terms and what we, as communicators, can do to reframe this language:
In Alarmist, Guenther describes how the fossil fuel industry framed those concerned about climate change as exaggerating, and instead frames the more pragmatic approach through lenses of techno optimism or luke warmism which accepts the reality of climate change but views warnings about its dangers as alarmist.
What comms can do: Deliver a message that makes it clear climate change will be catastrophic for everyone, steer the conversation to those in power doing what they can to stop the transition; and show how such a transition can bring a bunch of immediate benefits. And we must do so with an eye of mobilizing the alarmed into engaging in sustained, disruptive climate action.
In Cost, Guenther outlines how fossil fuel interests frame climate policy as a costly one that will hurt the economy and make everyone worse off. Countering this, she writes that “the costs of climate change are potentially infinite, and climate action is not a cost at all, but a social and economic windfall that will put money directly into Americans’ wallets.”
The false assumptions are that economic growth will continue at its previous rate even as the planet heats up; that growth is only marginally affected by climate damages; and that the cost of damages will be low.
What comms can do: Deliver a message that articulates how the cost of climate damages is lowballed (it will be large and devastating, using already existing examples of disasters), and that climate action is not a cost but an economic windfall that brings benefits and is affordable and safer than fossil fuels; we can also do well by not calling these costs but investments. In other words, we will be healthier and wealthier without fossil fuels.
In Growth, Guenther shows how fossil fuel interests justify their economy because of the fossil fuel connection to continued economic growth and that economic growth is itself a climate solution because it will shield the prosperous from climate devastation.
But this ideology relies on two unfounded dogmas: that tech can always substitute for nature and that wealthy societies have a nearly limitless capacity to adapt to global heating. Btu endless growth depends on the planet, specifically the arable land.
The ideology then underestimates climate impacts, as well as their impact on agriculture and thus the link to stability and growth. Crops failing leads to widespread social and political unrest, global conflict, and increased terrorism. And such disruptions are not limited to poorer nations.
What comms can do: Argue that it is quite likely that ruining the planet will also ruin the economy. “If it goes unchecked climate change will undermine the coupled human and ecological systems, like agriculture, that enable economic growth in the first place.”
Also: “Future progress relies not on our so-called mastery of nature, but on our acceptance that we are nature, and in destroying nature, we destroy ourselves.”
In India and China, Guenther circulates the misleading talking point that “so long as India and China continue to use fossil fuels, it won’t matter if the U.S. tries to halt global heating — any American effort will be futile.”
This talking point deflects America’s historical responsibility for climate change and sows hopelessness and cynicism among the electorate. It’s also wrong. China is leading on climate and cornering clean energy markets, giving it cultural supremacy and geopolitical power.
Guenther then delivers a quite thorough (and better yet understandable) summary of international climate politics and agreements and a constant theme of American stubbornness in trying to deflect responsibility or weaken agreements, especially considering America’s role in the climate crisis, its insistence on being a global leader, and its contradictory stance on not wanting to financially support climate-vulnerable nations (even though such support would be in U.S. self-interest).
What comms can do: Cite China’s enormous rate of clean energy deployment and describe the scope of its ambitious policies and how the U.S. has consistently obstructed international climate negotiations. By delivering clean energy solutions, China is also not so subtly pushing the narrative that authoritarianism is the form of governance best suited to resolve climate change.
On the other side of the coin, if China doesn't decarbonize, the world will have all the more reason for American leadership, which it could use to pressure China into phasing out fossil fuels through sanctions and treaties.
In Innovation, the idea is that we can keep burning fossil fuels because a technological innovation, code for carbon capture and storage or carbon dioxide removal, will bail us out. Conveniently, oil and gas companies position themselves to be the ones who can deliver on these technologies.
What comms can do: “Guard against the false narrative that CDR is a miracle that can decarbonize fossil fuels and restore the climate” because such tech cannot be relied on at massive scales and renewables are much, much cheaper. Instead, we should phase out fossil fuels, while simultaneously investing in innovative policies that nurture tech for industries like steel and agriculture that are tough to decarbonize.
In Resilience, Guenther argues that we should replace the term resilience with transformation, because the former implies that we can bounce back, elides the urgent need for systemic change, implies the climate crisis is occasional and temporary, implies that our previous state of systems was desirable to begin with, and allows conservatives to adopt pretence of taking climate action without addressing the threats of the fossil fuel economy.
“Committing to ending the fossil fuel system does something profound and personally valuable: it gives your life meaning. It turns you into living proof that the fossil fuel economy is not an expression of human nature, but a contingent way to distribute power. For here you are, a human being, fighting to distribute power differently… The fossil fuel industry and the governments that support it are literally colluding to stop you from transforming the world. They are trying to maintain the fossil fuel economy.”
This book is one step to fight against such propaganda and preserve a livable world.
July 17, 2024
I found this book to be a brilliant and eloquent analysis of climate change propaganda, rhetoric, and politics.
Each chapter is organized around a single word or phrase that is central to the way climate change is discussed by politicians, pundits, journalists, scientists, and fossil fuel PR, ads, and propaganda: "alarmist", "cost", "growth", "India and China", "innovation", and "resilience".
The book makes a clear, compelling, and even entertaining case. The argument seems to go something like this: from the science, clearly described in UN reports, it's clear that in order to address the climate crisis the world economy needs to transition away from fossil fuels, and reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions ASAP. If we don't, we're in for a world of hurt, which the author vividly describes. But the fossil fuel industry, and the politicians and pundits that it has bought and paid for, spew propaganda to try to prevent this transition away from fossil fuels. They claim that worrying about climate change is "alarmist". That to transition away from fossil fuels will "cost" too much. That we don't need to worry about transitioning away from fossil fuels because "growth", "innovation", or "resilience" will somehow save us. That it doesn't matter what the US does because the greenhouse gas emissions from "India and China" will overwhelm all other efforts.
The book shows that the way these terms are used is propagandistic and false. And, fascinatingly, the book shows that this discourse is unwittingly reinforced by the way these terms are used by mainstream figures: politicians, journalists, scientists, etc. The book elucidates the truth about each of these terms and the related issues, and clarifies how all of us – politicians, journalists, scientists, and citizens/voters – should be talking and thinking about the climate crisis. Very compelling. This book feels like essential reading for anyone who cares about whether their children and grandchildren will inherit a livable world.
Each chapter is organized around a single word or phrase that is central to the way climate change is discussed by politicians, pundits, journalists, scientists, and fossil fuel PR, ads, and propaganda: "alarmist", "cost", "growth", "India and China", "innovation", and "resilience".
The book makes a clear, compelling, and even entertaining case. The argument seems to go something like this: from the science, clearly described in UN reports, it's clear that in order to address the climate crisis the world economy needs to transition away from fossil fuels, and reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions ASAP. If we don't, we're in for a world of hurt, which the author vividly describes. But the fossil fuel industry, and the politicians and pundits that it has bought and paid for, spew propaganda to try to prevent this transition away from fossil fuels. They claim that worrying about climate change is "alarmist". That to transition away from fossil fuels will "cost" too much. That we don't need to worry about transitioning away from fossil fuels because "growth", "innovation", or "resilience" will somehow save us. That it doesn't matter what the US does because the greenhouse gas emissions from "India and China" will overwhelm all other efforts.
The book shows that the way these terms are used is propagandistic and false. And, fascinatingly, the book shows that this discourse is unwittingly reinforced by the way these terms are used by mainstream figures: politicians, journalists, scientists, etc. The book elucidates the truth about each of these terms and the related issues, and clarifies how all of us – politicians, journalists, scientists, and citizens/voters – should be talking and thinking about the climate crisis. Very compelling. This book feels like essential reading for anyone who cares about whether their children and grandchildren will inherit a livable world.
November 7, 2024
i'm so thankful that i found this book! it clarified the extent of the climate chaos ahead if we (meaning americans, who seem to be guenther's target audience) do not phase out fossil fuels NOW. guenther unpacks a series of terms – "alarmist," "cost," "growth," "india and china," "innovation," and "resilience" – weaponized by republicans and democrats alike to muffle this clarion call. i'm not sure whether her arguments will convince more conservative citizens, but i sure hope they do. as for those in power, i remain alarmed.
Read
September 1, 2024 i liked how it brought in different examples of rhetoric used in the media and what it broke down to mean, or the techniques the speaker was using, and how those compared with the speaker's own actions.
also, more importantly, i learned that genevieve guenther, who i have been familiar with only because of climate communication/advocacy, has a phd in renaissance lit?? she made a shakespeare metaphor once and i was like, i see you dr guenther, we are the same 😌
also, more importantly, i learned that genevieve guenther, who i have been familiar with only because of climate communication/advocacy, has a phd in renaissance lit?? she made a shakespeare metaphor once and i was like, i see you dr guenther, we are the same 😌
August 13, 2024
Terrifying and hopeful
September 12, 2025
What a conclusion!!
January 14, 2026
Such an important book to read but clearly not uplifting
February 20, 2025
Genevieve Guenther, a renaissance scholar and founder of the watchdog group End Climate Silence, describes the process by which the media, politicians, and fossil-fuel interests cook up language to serve their interests, reducing raw abstractions, drawn from varied sources and richly complex phenomena, into bite-sized portions for easy consumption, and then shows us how to take that same language back. This is a book about how to depoliticize language that has been politicized almost beyond recognition, and ultimately about clarifying just what we're talking about when we're talking about the climate.
She narrows her focus to six terms: alarmist, cost, growth, India and China, innovation, and resilience. Some of these terms, because of overuse in politics and the media as buzzwords or otherwise coded language, have become so shopworn that they essentially mean nothing to the common reader or listener, and have for that reason been picked up and weaponized as effective disinformation tools by fossil-fuel interests.
'Alarmist' is a term, as Guenther shows, often used by prominent people in the media and government to define what they are not. She quotes Senator Ron Johnson during a 2023 Budget Committee Hearing: 'I'm not a climate denier; I'm just not a climate alarmist.' Alarmist, here, decodes as 'unreasonable' or 'emotional', links the 'reasonable' politician obscurely with unemotional, objectively minded ('I'm just lookin' at the facts, here') scientists, and also paints anyone using the words 'climate crisis' or 'climate emergency' as vaguely deranged or resistant to reason. Among the actors of good or bad faith who admit that climate change is happening there's a spectrum of types: Lukewarmers, Techno-optimists, The Alarmed, Climate Scientists, and Doomers. The first and last groups are usually the least informed by climate realities; the Techno-optimists champion carbon capture and geoengineering solutions to the crisis; and the Alarmed (who constitute, I suspect, most of the readers of this book, and among whom I include myself), will use vivid, concrete, emotionally charged language to mobilize and organize others against the institutions, interests, and individuals that have caused and are continuing to stoke the climate crisis. '[They are] willing to call out bad actors and market forces like the profit motive, and [are] committed to phasing out fossil energy at the greatest possible speed.' (18) Name your favorite climate warrior/activist, here. If, during a conversation with a 'lukewarmer', you're able to weave past the first kneejerk dismissal about 'alarmism,' the field then opens up to a larger discussion about the other politicized terms in this book. The 'cost' of a solution is next on the list.
The word 'cost,' Guenther points out, often translates as 'sacrifice' or 'burden' in focus group settings, and when applied in a targeted way under the umbrella of climate change mitigation strategy conveys a vague impression that energy transformation will 'harm the economy and make everybody worse off.' She then expands and enriches the concept to include, first, the hugely influential cost-benefit analyses of William Nordhaus, who argued that any mitigation measures below an eventual 3.5 degrees of warming above preindustrial levels would cost more than any adaptive measures the economic system would have to implement in response to the day-to-day adventures of a hotter planet. Martin Weitzman's analysis, laid out in the book Climate Shock (2015), shows that, due to 'radically indeterminate' outcomes associated with 3 degrees of warming, we don't and can't know what the daily costs of a hotter world will look like. And indeed, as he says in a 2014 article, 'the cost of climate breakdown is potentially infinite.' When Nordhaus's DICE model was updated in 2020, it showed that the optimal cost-benefit target was at 1.5 C of temperature rise.
How affordable ('affordable' is another politicized term, often weaponized in healthcare debates) will it be to decarbonize the economy down to net-zero emissions and hold warming below 2 C, so that we can avoid the higher costs of climate change? Detailed comparative studies have been done on this question. 'IPCC lead author Joeri Rogelj and multiple colleagues have calculated that, worldwide, just one-tenth of 2020's global Covid-19 stimulus, directed toward decarbonization each year for five years, would be sufficient to deliver the goals of the Paris Agreement and stop global warming well below 2 C.' I scribbled a couple exclamation marks in the margins, here.
'Growth' has also suffered abuse and devaluation as it's become politicized. Guenther contextualizes it within Robert Solow's economic theory of perpetual growth, which has been mobilized, a bit superficially, against the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth projections (first in 1972, with updates continuing to the present decade). She touches on one of the central principles of the environmental movement in this chapter, a topic that she'll revisit in passing at a few other points in the book, the principle that economies and ecologies are interdependent. Riffing on Bill McKibben, though with a fiercer eloquence: 'We should renounce the tragic illusion that artificial materials can somehow replace what is known as nature. For, in truth, our so-called 'artificial materials' are nature. Our plastics are nature. Our skyscrapers are nature. Our airplanes are nature. Our oil wells are nature. Everything made by human beings emerges through the ecology of this planet and remains in its systems -- even the satellites that will one day drop back down to Earth, pulled inexorably by the gravity of home.'
Maybe the most frequent argument I've heard from lukewarmers or 'denialist-adjacent' people is framed in faintly nativist language: 'China is amping up their coal production and their cities are choked in smog, so why should we [Americans] hamstring ourselves by phasing out?' With a few adjustments, 'China' can be swapped out for any other developing country in the Global South. Disinformation like this, because it stokes racist feelings and nationalist sentiments, serves more than one purpose for bad faith actors: they can frame another economic and military power as an enemy while suggesting that decarbonization will lose the United States a tempo in the larger economic war. What's usually not stated is how China, seeing a path to energy independence in the growing renewables market, is rapidly decarbonizing its economy and is on the path to achieving 80% carbon neutrality by 2060. Guenther suggests a pivot, here, after touching on China's mass-scale decarbonization projects. The 'India and China' argument 'is designed to obscure...the United States' obstructionism in international climate negotiations and its ongoing commitment to fossil-fuel development.' America and Europe's most recent performance in last year's Baku summit (COP29), with a $300 billion pittance to developing countries by 2035, shows how little concern they have for climate justice, and how little responsibility they take for their own part in causing and accelerating the global state of emergency.
'Innovation' is often situated within a misreading of Solow's 'perpetual growth' theory, and as it's framed in the media suggests that technology will solve or offset any crises that might arise, over the next century, because of climate change. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies are gonna save the day, in the end, so we can continue on a business-as-usual path without any annoying crises of conscience about what we might be doing to our kids and grandkids (many of whom will be alive in 2100). We've had plenty of time to test both technologies (15+ years). The fact is, they're wildly costly and astonishingly inefficient at capturing and storing carbon dioxide (some even emitting more than they capture). All models show that quickly phasing out emissions is far more economically feasible and desirable than tech options. Naomi Klein, in her book This Changes Everything (2014), goes into great detail about some of these schemes (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, or SAI, is another innovative strategy often discussed without even a nod to its immediate or long-term effects on biospheric systems), and how insanely risky they are, especially when we have a clear path forward in the alternative scenario: just stop burning oil, coal, and gas and transform the global energy system.
'Resilience' is a sneaky term I often hear from 'lukewarmers' or fossil-fuel spokespeople attempting to pass themselves off as climate-concerned citizens. Guenther shows how the word, as it's used by folks like Marco Rubio or Ron DeSantis after climate-fueled disasters in Florida, reinforces the business-as-usual narrative. 'By framing the goal of adaptation policy as building the capacity of human systems to bounce back and return to their previous state after a disturbance, the word 'resilience' implies that the previous state of those systems was desirable to begin with. This implication silently glosses over how the current distribution of power across people and institutions...is sustaining the kind of economy that leads to global heating.' She suggests the word 'transformation' instead of 'resilience,' and points out how this fresh narrative intersects with climate justice concerns.
Nowadays I'm often thinking about climate change as a central point, a nexus of other intersecting issues: when we talk about climate change, what aren't we talking about? Wealth inequality (between nations and individuals), racial justice, immigration & the migrant crisis, biodiversity loss, the rise in zoonotic diseases due in part to ecological breakdown, rapid deforestation, and warming temperatures, healthcare, war and displacement: all of these meet under the header of climate change. It's a unifying issue. Guenther picks this up, here: 'Anti-resilience, anti-racism, anti-oppression -- the unequivocal goal of transforming our current systems, in all their injustices -- is not a distraction from the work of decarbonization. It is the core of that work.' It's important to repeat this. If there's any hope left in saving, well, everything, it's in framing the climate crisis as a unifying issue.
She ends the book with a call to action (or alarm! "Remember: the word 'alarm' comes from the Italian battle cry 'all'arme!', literally meaning 'to arms!' or 'to the weapons!'" (47)). This book is a practical guide for renewed engagement: as a how-to for re-arming (and re-alarming) yourself with language, the weapons you already possess, to make concrete what fossil-fuel propaganda has made viciously, worthlessly abstract, and finally to reclaim all of these six rhetorical flags that special interests have stolen and used for their own purposes. Guenther sounds again this martial tone at the end: 'Go out and use your voice on behalf of the people you love most, knowing that by initiating conversations about the climate and countering fossil-fuel propaganda you're fighting to save not only their future, but the future of all the magnificent beings who dwell in our planet's life giving embrace.'
She narrows her focus to six terms: alarmist, cost, growth, India and China, innovation, and resilience. Some of these terms, because of overuse in politics and the media as buzzwords or otherwise coded language, have become so shopworn that they essentially mean nothing to the common reader or listener, and have for that reason been picked up and weaponized as effective disinformation tools by fossil-fuel interests.
'Alarmist' is a term, as Guenther shows, often used by prominent people in the media and government to define what they are not. She quotes Senator Ron Johnson during a 2023 Budget Committee Hearing: 'I'm not a climate denier; I'm just not a climate alarmist.' Alarmist, here, decodes as 'unreasonable' or 'emotional', links the 'reasonable' politician obscurely with unemotional, objectively minded ('I'm just lookin' at the facts, here') scientists, and also paints anyone using the words 'climate crisis' or 'climate emergency' as vaguely deranged or resistant to reason. Among the actors of good or bad faith who admit that climate change is happening there's a spectrum of types: Lukewarmers, Techno-optimists, The Alarmed, Climate Scientists, and Doomers. The first and last groups are usually the least informed by climate realities; the Techno-optimists champion carbon capture and geoengineering solutions to the crisis; and the Alarmed (who constitute, I suspect, most of the readers of this book, and among whom I include myself), will use vivid, concrete, emotionally charged language to mobilize and organize others against the institutions, interests, and individuals that have caused and are continuing to stoke the climate crisis. '[They are] willing to call out bad actors and market forces like the profit motive, and [are] committed to phasing out fossil energy at the greatest possible speed.' (18) Name your favorite climate warrior/activist, here. If, during a conversation with a 'lukewarmer', you're able to weave past the first kneejerk dismissal about 'alarmism,' the field then opens up to a larger discussion about the other politicized terms in this book. The 'cost' of a solution is next on the list.
The word 'cost,' Guenther points out, often translates as 'sacrifice' or 'burden' in focus group settings, and when applied in a targeted way under the umbrella of climate change mitigation strategy conveys a vague impression that energy transformation will 'harm the economy and make everybody worse off.' She then expands and enriches the concept to include, first, the hugely influential cost-benefit analyses of William Nordhaus, who argued that any mitigation measures below an eventual 3.5 degrees of warming above preindustrial levels would cost more than any adaptive measures the economic system would have to implement in response to the day-to-day adventures of a hotter planet. Martin Weitzman's analysis, laid out in the book Climate Shock (2015), shows that, due to 'radically indeterminate' outcomes associated with 3 degrees of warming, we don't and can't know what the daily costs of a hotter world will look like. And indeed, as he says in a 2014 article, 'the cost of climate breakdown is potentially infinite.' When Nordhaus's DICE model was updated in 2020, it showed that the optimal cost-benefit target was at 1.5 C of temperature rise.
How affordable ('affordable' is another politicized term, often weaponized in healthcare debates) will it be to decarbonize the economy down to net-zero emissions and hold warming below 2 C, so that we can avoid the higher costs of climate change? Detailed comparative studies have been done on this question. 'IPCC lead author Joeri Rogelj and multiple colleagues have calculated that, worldwide, just one-tenth of 2020's global Covid-19 stimulus, directed toward decarbonization each year for five years, would be sufficient to deliver the goals of the Paris Agreement and stop global warming well below 2 C.' I scribbled a couple exclamation marks in the margins, here.
'Growth' has also suffered abuse and devaluation as it's become politicized. Guenther contextualizes it within Robert Solow's economic theory of perpetual growth, which has been mobilized, a bit superficially, against the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth projections (first in 1972, with updates continuing to the present decade). She touches on one of the central principles of the environmental movement in this chapter, a topic that she'll revisit in passing at a few other points in the book, the principle that economies and ecologies are interdependent. Riffing on Bill McKibben, though with a fiercer eloquence: 'We should renounce the tragic illusion that artificial materials can somehow replace what is known as nature. For, in truth, our so-called 'artificial materials' are nature. Our plastics are nature. Our skyscrapers are nature. Our airplanes are nature. Our oil wells are nature. Everything made by human beings emerges through the ecology of this planet and remains in its systems -- even the satellites that will one day drop back down to Earth, pulled inexorably by the gravity of home.'
Maybe the most frequent argument I've heard from lukewarmers or 'denialist-adjacent' people is framed in faintly nativist language: 'China is amping up their coal production and their cities are choked in smog, so why should we [Americans] hamstring ourselves by phasing out?' With a few adjustments, 'China' can be swapped out for any other developing country in the Global South. Disinformation like this, because it stokes racist feelings and nationalist sentiments, serves more than one purpose for bad faith actors: they can frame another economic and military power as an enemy while suggesting that decarbonization will lose the United States a tempo in the larger economic war. What's usually not stated is how China, seeing a path to energy independence in the growing renewables market, is rapidly decarbonizing its economy and is on the path to achieving 80% carbon neutrality by 2060. Guenther suggests a pivot, here, after touching on China's mass-scale decarbonization projects. The 'India and China' argument 'is designed to obscure...the United States' obstructionism in international climate negotiations and its ongoing commitment to fossil-fuel development.' America and Europe's most recent performance in last year's Baku summit (COP29), with a $300 billion pittance to developing countries by 2035, shows how little concern they have for climate justice, and how little responsibility they take for their own part in causing and accelerating the global state of emergency.
'Innovation' is often situated within a misreading of Solow's 'perpetual growth' theory, and as it's framed in the media suggests that technology will solve or offset any crises that might arise, over the next century, because of climate change. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies are gonna save the day, in the end, so we can continue on a business-as-usual path without any annoying crises of conscience about what we might be doing to our kids and grandkids (many of whom will be alive in 2100). We've had plenty of time to test both technologies (15+ years). The fact is, they're wildly costly and astonishingly inefficient at capturing and storing carbon dioxide (some even emitting more than they capture). All models show that quickly phasing out emissions is far more economically feasible and desirable than tech options. Naomi Klein, in her book This Changes Everything (2014), goes into great detail about some of these schemes (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, or SAI, is another innovative strategy often discussed without even a nod to its immediate or long-term effects on biospheric systems), and how insanely risky they are, especially when we have a clear path forward in the alternative scenario: just stop burning oil, coal, and gas and transform the global energy system.
'Resilience' is a sneaky term I often hear from 'lukewarmers' or fossil-fuel spokespeople attempting to pass themselves off as climate-concerned citizens. Guenther shows how the word, as it's used by folks like Marco Rubio or Ron DeSantis after climate-fueled disasters in Florida, reinforces the business-as-usual narrative. 'By framing the goal of adaptation policy as building the capacity of human systems to bounce back and return to their previous state after a disturbance, the word 'resilience' implies that the previous state of those systems was desirable to begin with. This implication silently glosses over how the current distribution of power across people and institutions...is sustaining the kind of economy that leads to global heating.' She suggests the word 'transformation' instead of 'resilience,' and points out how this fresh narrative intersects with climate justice concerns.
Nowadays I'm often thinking about climate change as a central point, a nexus of other intersecting issues: when we talk about climate change, what aren't we talking about? Wealth inequality (between nations and individuals), racial justice, immigration & the migrant crisis, biodiversity loss, the rise in zoonotic diseases due in part to ecological breakdown, rapid deforestation, and warming temperatures, healthcare, war and displacement: all of these meet under the header of climate change. It's a unifying issue. Guenther picks this up, here: 'Anti-resilience, anti-racism, anti-oppression -- the unequivocal goal of transforming our current systems, in all their injustices -- is not a distraction from the work of decarbonization. It is the core of that work.' It's important to repeat this. If there's any hope left in saving, well, everything, it's in framing the climate crisis as a unifying issue.
She ends the book with a call to action (or alarm! "Remember: the word 'alarm' comes from the Italian battle cry 'all'arme!', literally meaning 'to arms!' or 'to the weapons!'" (47)). This book is a practical guide for renewed engagement: as a how-to for re-arming (and re-alarming) yourself with language, the weapons you already possess, to make concrete what fossil-fuel propaganda has made viciously, worthlessly abstract, and finally to reclaim all of these six rhetorical flags that special interests have stolen and used for their own purposes. Guenther sounds again this martial tone at the end: 'Go out and use your voice on behalf of the people you love most, knowing that by initiating conversations about the climate and countering fossil-fuel propaganda you're fighting to save not only their future, but the future of all the magnificent beings who dwell in our planet's life giving embrace.'
January 5, 2025
Over the Christmas break, I had the chance - and pleasure - to read The Language of Climate Politics by Genevieve Guenther, PhD, and I’m still reflecting on its powerful insights. The book offers a sharp and eye-opening analysis of how the language surrounding climate change shapes our understanding and actions.
Genevieve Guenther doesn’t hold back in revealing how narratives are crafted to influence public perception—and often delay meaningful action. It’s a must-read for anyone looking to engage deeply with the climate crisis and understand how words can both empower and mislead.
For me, it was a strong reminder of the importance of acting wisely and taking responsibility in our own spheres of influence. Each of us has a role to play, whether in how we speak about the climate or in the actions we take to contribute to change.
Genevieve Guenther doesn’t hold back in revealing how narratives are crafted to influence public perception—and often delay meaningful action. It’s a must-read for anyone looking to engage deeply with the climate crisis and understand how words can both empower and mislead.
For me, it was a strong reminder of the importance of acting wisely and taking responsibility in our own spheres of influence. Each of us has a role to play, whether in how we speak about the climate or in the actions we take to contribute to change.
December 3, 2024
read this for my climate change obstructionism class-- it was fantastic! a great read if you are already interested in the powers involved in the climate crisis and want to equip yourself with even more knowledge about climate politics.
January 27, 2025
Guenther names 6 arguments against doing the work to change our energy systems from climate heating fossil fuels to climate preserving renewables. And in each of these 6, she gives excellent and strong counter arguments. The book is very much worth reading by anyone who is desiring to keep a livable climate on the earth for humanity.
Climate activists must read Guenther's book. If you know it all because you are a scientist or specialist in the field, she will help you communicate. If you are a layperson--like me-- simply wanting to make clear assertions, she will give you enough details to make your case without going way over your head. And if you haven't figured out how the liars are lying, she really helps with that.
"We" are not responsible for the catastrophes of a changing climate. It's not all humanity by a long shot. And it's not someone making minimum wage in America. It is first and foremost the corporations that have lied to us for a couple of generations and the politicians who have enabled them. It is the wealthy who, in the past, gained their wealth in their day without the obvious consequences for tomorrow; and it is the wealthy in this day who continue to gain wealth without the obvious consequences for millions who now suffer. (And, I would add, it is us liberals who know better, but do little to deal with the changed and worsening world climate.)
"Alarmist" "But this message turned out to be premature. With truly staggering speed, the planet has revealed that the climate system will likely break down in catastrophic ways at much lower levels of global warming than once predicted. So even though scientists have lowered their estimates of future emissions, the world is in no less danger than it ever was." pg 11.
"[Y]et the best way to ensure a safer future is not to dwell on the impacts of climate change, but to turn our attention to the people who are doing everything they can to keep the fossil energy system in place. We must focus on removing those people from cultural and political power." pg 11-12
She then takes on the good news that the projections for worst case scenarios will not come to pass, especially as the production of electricity moves towards renewables. Some people have now shifted to a more sanguine perspective. She says that this is absurd in the section called "The Catastrophic Outcome of 3 degrees C." p37.
"Although 'none of the observed changes so far (with [then] a 1.2degreeC temperature rise)are surprising, . . . they are more severe than we predicted twenty years ago, and more severe than the predictions of five years ago.'" p40
"To preserve our safety, the world must stop burning fossil fuels now. Not in our grandchildren's or even our children's lifetimes. Now." p 44
What to communicate? "climate change will become catastrophic for everyone . . ." "Steer the conversation to the powerful people . . ." "Show how . . . transforming those system will have wonderful immediate benefits-- cleaner air; cleaner water; healthier lives; more leisure; . . . saving thousands of dollars every year on electricity, gasoline, and heat; communities renewed . . .; a sense of purpose and meaning in this human adventure . . ." p46
"Cost" Here she talks about how conservative economists blindly use metrics that don't fit with the realities of life. If there is a great climate induced famine, the economists imagine that society could just somehow buy itself out of the predicament. And, they have been following the early estimates of what climate damage would cost, which have been wildly optimistic in the face of the actual costs. p58.
Because there is some likelihood of extinction [or, I add, simply civilizational collapse], "the cost of climate breakdown is potentially infinite." p61 [How lucky do you feel, kid?] ". . . the costs of climate damages will be up to 100 times greater than prior estimates for 2degreesC warming." p65
Yet actually doing the work to move off fossil fuels has become much cheaper than earlier predictions. "He found that a fully electrified home and car could save the average household up to a solid $1,900 a year." p68
So, what do we communicate? Moving to renewables will actually cost us less. Personally we will save money. And where the upfront costs are difficult, we should see them as investments. p69 In the face of the difficulties dismantling the fossil fuel industry we should emphasize the damages of the hotter climate and then emphasize the windfall that will put money directly into American's pockets.
"Growth" She discusses the conservative reaction to "Limits to Growth"-
"The substitution of technology for 'natural resources'--whether arable land, raw industrial materials, fossil fuels, or whole ecosystems themselves--would enable people in essence to use up the planet and still live healthy, safe, and affluent lives without fear of overshoot and collapse." p85
We cannot "adapt" our way out of the crisis -- why? because it keeps getting worse and the disasters will finally overwhelm our capacity to deal with them. p92f
How to talk about growth? "At the very least, you should use the latest economics research and current mortality statistics to emphasize that as climate change accelerates, it will hurt and kill ever larger numbers of the affluent, as it's already hurting and killing so many of the poor." p107
"India and China" here she talks about the political realities at the moment in time in 2024, before the election of the fascist felon, that were before her readers. Blaming "India and China" for what we have done, as well as ignoring our leadership position in the world, leads to "cynicism and hopelessness." To counter this, do political action.
"Innovation" Here she goes after the notion that new technologies can allow us to simply continue burning fossil fuels. No, they can't. Unless some miracle in physics occurs.
"Resilience" No, as we said before, the accelerating nature of the disaster does not allow for spending time on resilience that needs to be spent on changing away from fossil fuels.
In the after words she encourages people to talk about climate change.
Please read this book.
Climate activists must read Guenther's book. If you know it all because you are a scientist or specialist in the field, she will help you communicate. If you are a layperson--like me-- simply wanting to make clear assertions, she will give you enough details to make your case without going way over your head. And if you haven't figured out how the liars are lying, she really helps with that.
"We" are not responsible for the catastrophes of a changing climate. It's not all humanity by a long shot. And it's not someone making minimum wage in America. It is first and foremost the corporations that have lied to us for a couple of generations and the politicians who have enabled them. It is the wealthy who, in the past, gained their wealth in their day without the obvious consequences for tomorrow; and it is the wealthy in this day who continue to gain wealth without the obvious consequences for millions who now suffer. (And, I would add, it is us liberals who know better, but do little to deal with the changed and worsening world climate.)
"Alarmist" "But this message turned out to be premature. With truly staggering speed, the planet has revealed that the climate system will likely break down in catastrophic ways at much lower levels of global warming than once predicted. So even though scientists have lowered their estimates of future emissions, the world is in no less danger than it ever was." pg 11.
"[Y]et the best way to ensure a safer future is not to dwell on the impacts of climate change, but to turn our attention to the people who are doing everything they can to keep the fossil energy system in place. We must focus on removing those people from cultural and political power." pg 11-12
She then takes on the good news that the projections for worst case scenarios will not come to pass, especially as the production of electricity moves towards renewables. Some people have now shifted to a more sanguine perspective. She says that this is absurd in the section called "The Catastrophic Outcome of 3 degrees C." p37.
"Although 'none of the observed changes so far (with [then] a 1.2degreeC temperature rise)are surprising, . . . they are more severe than we predicted twenty years ago, and more severe than the predictions of five years ago.'" p40
"To preserve our safety, the world must stop burning fossil fuels now. Not in our grandchildren's or even our children's lifetimes. Now." p 44
What to communicate? "climate change will become catastrophic for everyone . . ." "Steer the conversation to the powerful people . . ." "Show how . . . transforming those system will have wonderful immediate benefits-- cleaner air; cleaner water; healthier lives; more leisure; . . . saving thousands of dollars every year on electricity, gasoline, and heat; communities renewed . . .; a sense of purpose and meaning in this human adventure . . ." p46
"Cost" Here she talks about how conservative economists blindly use metrics that don't fit with the realities of life. If there is a great climate induced famine, the economists imagine that society could just somehow buy itself out of the predicament. And, they have been following the early estimates of what climate damage would cost, which have been wildly optimistic in the face of the actual costs. p58.
Because there is some likelihood of extinction [or, I add, simply civilizational collapse], "the cost of climate breakdown is potentially infinite." p61 [How lucky do you feel, kid?] ". . . the costs of climate damages will be up to 100 times greater than prior estimates for 2degreesC warming." p65
Yet actually doing the work to move off fossil fuels has become much cheaper than earlier predictions. "He found that a fully electrified home and car could save the average household up to a solid $1,900 a year." p68
So, what do we communicate? Moving to renewables will actually cost us less. Personally we will save money. And where the upfront costs are difficult, we should see them as investments. p69 In the face of the difficulties dismantling the fossil fuel industry we should emphasize the damages of the hotter climate and then emphasize the windfall that will put money directly into American's pockets.
"Growth" She discusses the conservative reaction to "Limits to Growth"-
"The substitution of technology for 'natural resources'--whether arable land, raw industrial materials, fossil fuels, or whole ecosystems themselves--would enable people in essence to use up the planet and still live healthy, safe, and affluent lives without fear of overshoot and collapse." p85
We cannot "adapt" our way out of the crisis -- why? because it keeps getting worse and the disasters will finally overwhelm our capacity to deal with them. p92f
How to talk about growth? "At the very least, you should use the latest economics research and current mortality statistics to emphasize that as climate change accelerates, it will hurt and kill ever larger numbers of the affluent, as it's already hurting and killing so many of the poor." p107
"India and China" here she talks about the political realities at the moment in time in 2024, before the election of the fascist felon, that were before her readers. Blaming "India and China" for what we have done, as well as ignoring our leadership position in the world, leads to "cynicism and hopelessness." To counter this, do political action.
"Innovation" Here she goes after the notion that new technologies can allow us to simply continue burning fossil fuels. No, they can't. Unless some miracle in physics occurs.
"Resilience" No, as we said before, the accelerating nature of the disaster does not allow for spending time on resilience that needs to be spent on changing away from fossil fuels.
In the after words she encourages people to talk about climate change.
Please read this book.
August 13, 2024
How do words shape the future of our planet? Unravel the intricacies of climate communication, and equip yourself with best practices to change the world with your voice in "The Language of Climate Politics: Fossil-Fuel Propaganda and How to Fight It” by the incendiary writer and climate communication expert, Dr. Genevieve Guenther.
This is the best book I've read on climate communication, period. Packed with readily deployable practical tips and yet beautifully compact as a physical book and totally comprehensive towards its aims; reminds me of the great climate comms work of Dr. Katherine Hayhoe (if you've read "Saving Us: A Climate Scientist's Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World." you'll love The Language of Climate Politics). I've been a longtime follower of Dr. Genevieve Guenther's work, on twitter and through her movement and nonprofit work to end climate silence. With her new book, The Language of Climate Politics, Dr. Guenther expands the renewable power of her expertise by giving us all conversational tools to dismantle fossil-fueled lies and face climate reality with truth and courage.
The structure of the book brings so much focus to what, as a concept, like with climate, could go all over the place. But because Dr. Genevieve Guenther is contributing to this work at every level in the climate communication trenches daily, truly committed to all we can save, she provides a laser-targeted focus brilliantly imbued into the structure of the book. Focusing on a single paragraph of miscommunication that is expertly dismantled throughout sections. Including the highest quality reference case studies and stats, custom research, all written in a powerfully conversational tone that makes the book hard to put down!
Most of all, I loved the way Dr. Genevieve Guenther threads her heart and power together to show the way forward with truth and love. Would recommend as a great gift for your climate passionate friends, political organizers, and clean energy leaders alike.
Highly recommend you read The Language of Climate Politics: Fossil-Fuel Propaganda and How to Fight It for its standout structure, usefulness, and power.
As a longtime climate activist and impact comms professional who wants to make real change and not contribute to the climate changed status quo, I can't recommend this book enough. Through expert reference, custom research, and applying the expert comms frameworks in the trenches of The Discourse, Dr. Genevieve Guenther has gifted the climate movement brilliance embodied in a powerfully useful book. Give it a read!
This is the best book I've read on climate communication, period. Packed with readily deployable practical tips and yet beautifully compact as a physical book and totally comprehensive towards its aims; reminds me of the great climate comms work of Dr. Katherine Hayhoe (if you've read "Saving Us: A Climate Scientist's Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World." you'll love The Language of Climate Politics). I've been a longtime follower of Dr. Genevieve Guenther's work, on twitter and through her movement and nonprofit work to end climate silence. With her new book, The Language of Climate Politics, Dr. Guenther expands the renewable power of her expertise by giving us all conversational tools to dismantle fossil-fueled lies and face climate reality with truth and courage.
The structure of the book brings so much focus to what, as a concept, like with climate, could go all over the place. But because Dr. Genevieve Guenther is contributing to this work at every level in the climate communication trenches daily, truly committed to all we can save, she provides a laser-targeted focus brilliantly imbued into the structure of the book. Focusing on a single paragraph of miscommunication that is expertly dismantled throughout sections. Including the highest quality reference case studies and stats, custom research, all written in a powerfully conversational tone that makes the book hard to put down!
Most of all, I loved the way Dr. Genevieve Guenther threads her heart and power together to show the way forward with truth and love. Would recommend as a great gift for your climate passionate friends, political organizers, and clean energy leaders alike.
Highly recommend you read The Language of Climate Politics: Fossil-Fuel Propaganda and How to Fight It for its standout structure, usefulness, and power.
As a longtime climate activist and impact comms professional who wants to make real change and not contribute to the climate changed status quo, I can't recommend this book enough. Through expert reference, custom research, and applying the expert comms frameworks in the trenches of The Discourse, Dr. Genevieve Guenther has gifted the climate movement brilliance embodied in a powerfully useful book. Give it a read!
December 3, 2024
If you want to read a book about the climate, this is (without doubt) the one you need.
It manages to distill the science into plain English and leads you through the reasons why we consistently fail to tackle the problem. It starts with the perfect explanation of the categories people fall into, when it comes to climate concern and how each group, consciously or unconsciously, plays a part in holding back the political change we need. At the same time, it gives you a razor-sharp insight into how fossil fuel interests exploit this situation, to their benefit.
The next two chapters tackle the major climate sticking points of Cost (we simply can't afford it) and Growth (only growth can save us) and succeed in going a good way to dismantling current economic thinking in a way that, for me, suddenly made sense as to why so many powerful interests seem to ignore the climate threats. If you are studying economics (which has such a significant blind spot on climate) then you must read these chapters.
The final three chapters will educate you on how to unravel the arguments used by vested interests to not take the action needed on climate. The first is China and India, this chapter is enlightening when compared to the rhetoric we are fed on an almost daily basis, rhetoric that is highly misleading and designed to deflect attention away from Western countries' lack of climate progress. Innovation comes next - this chapter will educate you on the extraordinary ideas held at the highest level relating to how we will simply deploy dubious technologies to solve the problem (gaslighting alert) before finishing with Resilience, which demonstrates how powerful interests grossly underestimate the threats and overestimate our ability to deal with them.
We have all the technology we need (more or less) to tackle the climate crisis, what we have been lacking is an instruction manual as to how to do this in the face of ridiculously well-funded vested interests. This book gets you most of the way there - please do read it !
It manages to distill the science into plain English and leads you through the reasons why we consistently fail to tackle the problem. It starts with the perfect explanation of the categories people fall into, when it comes to climate concern and how each group, consciously or unconsciously, plays a part in holding back the political change we need. At the same time, it gives you a razor-sharp insight into how fossil fuel interests exploit this situation, to their benefit.
The next two chapters tackle the major climate sticking points of Cost (we simply can't afford it) and Growth (only growth can save us) and succeed in going a good way to dismantling current economic thinking in a way that, for me, suddenly made sense as to why so many powerful interests seem to ignore the climate threats. If you are studying economics (which has such a significant blind spot on climate) then you must read these chapters.
The final three chapters will educate you on how to unravel the arguments used by vested interests to not take the action needed on climate. The first is China and India, this chapter is enlightening when compared to the rhetoric we are fed on an almost daily basis, rhetoric that is highly misleading and designed to deflect attention away from Western countries' lack of climate progress. Innovation comes next - this chapter will educate you on the extraordinary ideas held at the highest level relating to how we will simply deploy dubious technologies to solve the problem (gaslighting alert) before finishing with Resilience, which demonstrates how powerful interests grossly underestimate the threats and overestimate our ability to deal with them.
We have all the technology we need (more or less) to tackle the climate crisis, what we have been lacking is an instruction manual as to how to do this in the face of ridiculously well-funded vested interests. This book gets you most of the way there - please do read it !
November 22, 2025
Genevieve Guenther’s book is chock full of details about the evolving climate crisis and global warming as well as the on-going efforts of the fossil fuel industry and other corporate bodies to undermine any serious attempts to mitigate the crisis. She lists six different strategies most often used. She writes first about “alarmists.” They have been around for a while, they are telling us that we’re still not sure how correct the scientists are, or how serious the problem of global warming is, and therefore, we needn’t get overly alarmed. Most interesting to me in the “alarmist” group are those “doomers” who think it’s too late already and why bother taking any action. I also found the chapter on “India and China” particularly compelling. Both of these countries are still emitting plenty of climate-change driving chemicals. And yet, Guenther shows us how China, in particular, is leading the world in quickly shifting over to “green” technology and is also leading in assisting developing nations to develop green energy.
She also makes clear that those with money are not willing to give up their fossil-fuel generated income. She says, “U.S. billionaires, a mere 650 people, could pay for over a year of the entire national transition to net zero (emissions) with the extra money they made in the first year of the covid-19 pandemic.” But they didn’t pay, and they aren’t paying. They are making too much money to let oil and gas go as a major source of income.
Throughout this book, Guenther gives us strategies about how to talk to people about the climate crisis. And her final chapter, “After Words: Walking the Talk,” is a call to action to all of us who recognize the severity of global warming and the dangers to both our Planet Earth and to us.
She also makes clear that those with money are not willing to give up their fossil-fuel generated income. She says, “U.S. billionaires, a mere 650 people, could pay for over a year of the entire national transition to net zero (emissions) with the extra money they made in the first year of the covid-19 pandemic.” But they didn’t pay, and they aren’t paying. They are making too much money to let oil and gas go as a major source of income.
Throughout this book, Guenther gives us strategies about how to talk to people about the climate crisis. And her final chapter, “After Words: Walking the Talk,” is a call to action to all of us who recognize the severity of global warming and the dangers to both our Planet Earth and to us.
August 6, 2024
Coming from EU policy level, this sounded like a crucial piece of information to work with.
And...well, it is problematic. Will try going layer by layer.
A) it is nearly completely US-centric, including in very specific parts of messaging. That is of course not the fault of the book, but big part of the content is not really useful or even actively harmful in for example European contexts.
b) it's not just advocating for climate conscious policy, it is directly going for a very specific branch of de-growth. That itself can be complicated in trying to build communication on, but there are also signs of author actually accepting some very problematic and policy weak elements of de-growth, including a fast note on "and we can pay for it all with MODERN MONETARY THEORY". That is a...very bold statement.
C) the attempt to tackle the "but what about India/China" argument is very important, the results are mixed. First, India is basically not mentioned at all. Second, China "carbon peaking" policy has both succeses and failures, but the book does not really get deep into the failures and the human cost the Chinese model has around the world. Which is a bit problematic when the USA gets some tough criticism for neo-colonialism and imperialistic policies, but well, China gets an overall "the system is wrong" Quick mention, but the intrinsic connection between chinese renewables build up is swept under the carpet.
What works very well are all the parts on climate models (yes, DICE sucks) and INNOVATION hype (yes, carbon storage sucks). All together, it was inspiring, just a bit too often inspiring in "well, this is really an extremely hot take".
And...well, it is problematic. Will try going layer by layer.
A) it is nearly completely US-centric, including in very specific parts of messaging. That is of course not the fault of the book, but big part of the content is not really useful or even actively harmful in for example European contexts.
b) it's not just advocating for climate conscious policy, it is directly going for a very specific branch of de-growth. That itself can be complicated in trying to build communication on, but there are also signs of author actually accepting some very problematic and policy weak elements of de-growth, including a fast note on "and we can pay for it all with MODERN MONETARY THEORY". That is a...very bold statement.
C) the attempt to tackle the "but what about India/China" argument is very important, the results are mixed. First, India is basically not mentioned at all. Second, China "carbon peaking" policy has both succeses and failures, but the book does not really get deep into the failures and the human cost the Chinese model has around the world. Which is a bit problematic when the USA gets some tough criticism for neo-colonialism and imperialistic policies, but well, China gets an overall "the system is wrong" Quick mention, but the intrinsic connection between chinese renewables build up is swept under the carpet.
What works very well are all the parts on climate models (yes, DICE sucks) and INNOVATION hype (yes, carbon storage sucks). All together, it was inspiring, just a bit too often inspiring in "well, this is really an extremely hot take".
May 4, 2025
The first thing to know is that this is not a book about how to talk with your neighbors about climate change. For that, please read the wonderful Saving Us by Katharine Hayhoe.
The second thing to know if that some of the people you think are your climate friends are actually not your climate friends. Guenther does an excellent job spotlighting code words that people use when they are trying to undermine someone who is alarmed about climate change. These words include "alarmist," "cost," "growth," "India & China," "innovation," and "resilience." These are words that suggest taking climate action is inconvenient, and, instead, we should continue on the path we're on and let other people (India & China) or approaches (innovation and resilience) save us. Instead of "we need to reduce emissions," which allows wiggle room for things like carbon capture and continued emissions, "we need to stop using fossil fuels" is more direct. Note that saying "we" caused climate change also masks the small subset of individuals who are most responsible for the largest amount of emissions.
I really enjoyed this book, which unpacks hidden truths about the fossil fuel industry and climate action detractors. It was eye-opening for me in a similar way to Michael Mann's The New Climate War, which I also enjoyed and recommend.
The second thing to know if that some of the people you think are your climate friends are actually not your climate friends. Guenther does an excellent job spotlighting code words that people use when they are trying to undermine someone who is alarmed about climate change. These words include "alarmist," "cost," "growth," "India & China," "innovation," and "resilience." These are words that suggest taking climate action is inconvenient, and, instead, we should continue on the path we're on and let other people (India & China) or approaches (innovation and resilience) save us. Instead of "we need to reduce emissions," which allows wiggle room for things like carbon capture and continued emissions, "we need to stop using fossil fuels" is more direct. Note that saying "we" caused climate change also masks the small subset of individuals who are most responsible for the largest amount of emissions.
I really enjoyed this book, which unpacks hidden truths about the fossil fuel industry and climate action detractors. It was eye-opening for me in a similar way to Michael Mann's The New Climate War, which I also enjoyed and recommend.
March 16, 2025
A very useful book. It's not easy arguing with climate change deniers, especially when unfamiliar with the argument. Here, Dr. Guenther provides a great service. Her resolution is to move completely from fossil-fuels. To reach this, advocates must overcome the objections made by the deniers. The objections are categorized into six types: alarmist, cost, growth, India and China, innovation, and resilience. For each type, Dr. Guenther presents the denier argument, facts behind the argument, and a rebuttal to the argument.
The book is well researched. Nor is it biased toward either political party or nation. All speak through both sides of their mouths. Yet if climate change is ever to be addressed as it should be, countering denial arguments and needed.
The book is well researched. Nor is it biased toward either political party or nation. All speak through both sides of their mouths. Yet if climate change is ever to be addressed as it should be, countering denial arguments and needed.
November 11, 2024
The Language of Climate Politics is the most insightful and important climate book I've read this year - and I read a lot of books on climate change each year. Guenther explains why we aren't making rapid progress on the climate crisis even though the cost of renewables is lower than fossil fuels, there is 70-80% public support for climate action, and other indicators that we should be bending the curve on climate rapidly. It is an essential read that frames how we need to talk about and act on climate change to meet this critical moment in the climate crisis, especially given Trump's election.
January 29, 2026
This came highly recommended, but in the end I found it just okay.
What I liked:
- Guenther does a good job using a level and measured tone of voice to analyze and pick apart the linguistic patterns of climate change denier speech. I especially appreciated an early chapter in which she categorizes the different types of climate change alarmists/deniers/opportunists and describes their different mindsets and how they can be identified based on the language they use. I found that a useful breakdown, because it’s true: you can’t talk about climate change with each group in the same way, you have to “understand the enemy” in order to attempt to reach them.
- Guenther highlights several key terms that repeatedly come up in the language of climate politics, such as “innovation” (as in, only by promoting more capitalistic innovation will we be saved from climate change) and “China and India” (as in, yes we are contributing to global warming, but have you seen how much more harm to the environment theeeese two countries are causing??).
What I did not like:
- The solutions that Guenther promotes are simply reiterations of what’s already been recommended before. Each section ends with Guenther giving advice for how to talk about climate change with the aforementioned alarmists/deniers/opportunists… but if you’ve been around long enough, reading and thinking and talking, you’ll find that her suggestions are just more of the same, e.g. “Use this fact to make your rich neighbors care about climate change!” As if.
- Guenther fails to examine her Western/American bias, and ends up producing silly-sounding beliefs about American society and “democracy” that ring hollow especially this year. This was already evident in earlier sections, but was never more apparent than in the “China and India” section, in which her message to readers is basically, “Sure, China is doing these world-leading things to combat climate change, but since they are an AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT and we in the US are a FREE DEMOCRACY, we should be doing more to show the rest of the world how to lead the fight against climate change in the BETTER, FREE, and DEMOCRATIC way.” Like yeah, Genevieve, I see you using your Sinophobia to advance your point, and I am calling you out on it.
-
Overall, this was… okay, I guess? Some people will find this very helpful, especially since she conducts her discourse analysis in such a level-headed way. But ultimately this read to me like more of the same, with an extra dose of a total lack of self-awareness that she continues to buy into American exceptionalism.
What I liked:
- Guenther does a good job using a level and measured tone of voice to analyze and pick apart the linguistic patterns of climate change denier speech. I especially appreciated an early chapter in which she categorizes the different types of climate change alarmists/deniers/opportunists and describes their different mindsets and how they can be identified based on the language they use. I found that a useful breakdown, because it’s true: you can’t talk about climate change with each group in the same way, you have to “understand the enemy” in order to attempt to reach them.
- Guenther highlights several key terms that repeatedly come up in the language of climate politics, such as “innovation” (as in, only by promoting more capitalistic innovation will we be saved from climate change) and “China and India” (as in, yes we are contributing to global warming, but have you seen how much more harm to the environment theeeese two countries are causing??).
What I did not like:
- The solutions that Guenther promotes are simply reiterations of what’s already been recommended before. Each section ends with Guenther giving advice for how to talk about climate change with the aforementioned alarmists/deniers/opportunists… but if you’ve been around long enough, reading and thinking and talking, you’ll find that her suggestions are just more of the same, e.g. “Use this fact to make your rich neighbors care about climate change!” As if.
- Guenther fails to examine her Western/American bias, and ends up producing silly-sounding beliefs about American society and “democracy” that ring hollow especially this year. This was already evident in earlier sections, but was never more apparent than in the “China and India” section, in which her message to readers is basically, “Sure, China is doing these world-leading things to combat climate change, but since they are an AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT and we in the US are a FREE DEMOCRACY, we should be doing more to show the rest of the world how to lead the fight against climate change in the BETTER, FREE, and DEMOCRATIC way.” Like yeah, Genevieve, I see you using your Sinophobia to advance your point, and I am calling you out on it.
-
Overall, this was… okay, I guess? Some people will find this very helpful, especially since she conducts her discourse analysis in such a level-headed way. But ultimately this read to me like more of the same, with an extra dose of a total lack of self-awareness that she continues to buy into American exceptionalism.
November 11, 2024
Quick, compelling and crystallized all the strategies being used to trick well-intentioned people into opposing climate action. Clearly explains how the fossil fuel industry and their government enablers continue to rake in the money from working class pockets, all while driving planet warming beyond what is livable. This book offers clear, simple arguments with data debunking anti-climate myths and demonstrating how the energy transition has been a great opportunity for countries who are racing ahead.
November 10, 2024
This book is so important to the fight against climate change. If everyone could read this, they would understand how politicians and corporations obscure what is really happening through misleading language and ideas. We desperately need the deeper understanding of the climate crisis that Guenther provides in this straightforward, highly readable book. There is literally no more important book you could read right now.
November 10, 2024
A clear, actionable book on how we can see through modern fossil fuel industry talking points. I feel more prepared to talk to those who have bought into myths fueled by the fossil fuel industry (and as she discusses, in some ways most of us have.) It's also very well-researched and with useful stories to ground the argumens.
The messages in this book should reach a broad audience now more than ever.
The messages in this book should reach a broad audience now more than ever.
March 24, 2025
A very poor book. Rather than actually examining why people oppose climate action and creating arguments that resonate with them, Guenther just repeats the same tired old arguments without considering that maybe they aren't working. The voices of anyone who doesn't agree with her are completely absent from the book. Convincing people of climate action is an urgent task that needs people who are going to take it seriously - this book is actively harmful to the cause.
May 26, 2025
What an electrifying opening! I work in this field and learned from this book but I was possibly hoping for something more sociological - I found the sections a bit too bogged down in facts and statistics. I was always waiting: yes yes the situation is awful, _so what_? Tempted to offer 3* to this as I was slightly forcing myself to go on by the end but it was so well researched and valuable that I'll tip it to 4*.
September 21, 2024
If you are angry about all of the caviling and obfuscations around the climate change that is now climate crisis, if you have friends nearby or across the world facing floods or wildfires, read this book.
We have to stop using fossil fuels; no longer any question.
Most importantly, this book can help you yourself be articulate & persuasive in demanding change.
We have to stop using fossil fuels; no longer any question.
Most importantly, this book can help you yourself be articulate & persuasive in demanding change.
August 23, 2025
Such an amazing book. Most people can now spot overt climate disinformation, but Guenther shows how more subtle fossil fuel propaganda appropriates language of activists and scientists, weaponizing it to slow down climate policy. And more importantly, she shows what we can do to combat that false narrative.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews