Language may crystallise or cloud arguments (Image: Reuters/Carlo Allegri)

Language is rarely neutral, and the language we use to discuss climate change can shape how we understand it and respond to it, if at all. Metaphors are an especially persuasive part of language, which is why we decided to analyse their use in 287 climate-change-related editorials and op-eds published since 2006. These appeared on the websites of the UK Guardian and Daily Mail newspapers, sites which attract millions of readers.

The Guardian used war metaphors such as “battle”, “fight”, “retreat”, “combat” and “triumph” repeatedly to argue that the science of climate change is settled and must be acted on. Religious metaphors dominated in Daily Mail pieces; “ayatollahs”, “crusaders”, “cultists”, “conversion” and “recant” were used to question climate science and the necessity to act on it.

What are the implications? War metaphors can instil unity, emphasising the seriousness of a problem and the importance of doing something about it. If enough people think of climate change in such terms, it may be easier to enact mitigation policies, even harsh ones, because extraordinary measures are justified in a war.


However, these metaphors may backfire by failing to induce a sense of urgency. Research on communicating health messages shows that trying to scare people into action can lead to apathy instead. The war trope may also create a false picture. Making an abstract thing called “climate change” the enemy makes it hard to see that the enemy is actually ourselves and our behaviour.

As for the religious metaphors, these were chiefly used to describe climate scientists, diverting the focus on to the people rather than the analyses they carried out. The use of “conversion” and “recanting” to describe a transition from believing in climate change to being sceptical are what linguists call novel metaphors – regarded as especially persuasive because they are new to the reader.

Metaphors may guide public perceptions of climate change and provide politicians with arguments to act, or not to act. That war metaphors are used to advance pro-climate change arguments and religious metaphors to underline sceptical arguments raises concerns about policy gridlock – with both types of metaphor reinforcing opposing positions.

In an ideal world, our climate change language would be updated to ease these concerns. At the very least, we can all be more aware of how language can hamper progress.

The writers’ full findings appear in the journal Environmental Communication