George Monbiot’s call to reconsider how we name things (Forget ‘the environment’. Fight for our living planet, 9 August) is a timely contribution to a confusing world. But one word that both he and the majority of online contributors have ignored is “prosperity”. That, after all, is why humans engage in economic activity: they believe it will make things better. There is, however, a fundamental problem with the way we have arranged our economic affairs. By treating the natural world as an infinite thing, “external” to the economy (except as a never-ending supply of resources) we have built a massive endeavour to take natural resources and make them into things that are then disposed of, generally after a fairly brief period of human enjoyment.

Everyone I speak to readily accepts that under this system the planet must eventually “run out”, but they cannot see an alternative to “prosperity”. The conversation we need to have is not how we name things but how we do things.

Margaret Thatcher’s speech to the UN general assembly in 1989 recognised that human economic activity was having a fundamental impact on our planet but somehow failed to recognise that all these activities are driven by incentives. In the rich, polluting world the survival incentive has long been replaced by the prosper incentive, but our rules of economy still behave as if we can have it all despite a population level almost 20 times that of when the rules were derived.

Earth Overshoot Day for 2017 fell on 2 August. For the rest of this year our economy is using up the reserves of the natural world, yet we continue to subsidise the use of fossil fuels to the tune of $5tn (Climate Consensus – the 97%, theguardian.com, 7 August). Adam Smith observed that man’s desire to improve his lot is a powerful one: aspiration is a real human need. But if the economy really is going to deliver prosperity, we need one that can work with the natural world rather than one that consumes it, whatever it is called.

Harold Forbes

Wareham, Dorset

• George Monbiot has issued a timely reminder that we need new words to describe our natural world and the growing threats to it. The incessant use of impenetrable language risks spawning public apathy instead of reverence for nature and passion to act. Nowhere is this greater than in a post-EU world where the names of the vital tools that protect our air, water and wildlife – directives, preambles and statutory instruments – mean little to most of us.

The government’s long-awaited 25-year environment plan and parliamentary bills on farming and fisheries provide an early opportunity to change the narrative. Will they seize this generational opportunity to set us on a new path of reconnection with our natural world, or will they see us retreat into the familiar bastion of techno-speak? I’m hoping for the former.

Ruth Chambers

London

• One way to encourage a language full of “natural wonder” would be to move the wonderful Country Diary from the back of the paper to the editorial pages, where more readers would encounter it.

Alison Leonard

Hebden Bridge, West Yorkshire

• For once I find myself in total agreement with the Trump administration (US federal workers are told: stop saying ‘climate change’, 8 August). Phrases such as “climate change” and “global warming” are scientifically misleading, giving an entirely inaccurate impression. I would certainly ban them and insist on the use of phrases such as “global overheating”, “climate crisis”, “world on fire” and “impending disaster” as giving a much truer representation of what’s really going on.

Charles Harris

London

• Re the US Department of Agriculture’s instruction to avoid “climate change” in favour of “weather extremes”, this brings back memories of when, some years ago on the TV show Three of a Kind, Lenny Henry commented that, as part of the attempt to rebuild the appalling reputation of Windscale, it was to be renamed Sellafield “because it sounds nicer. And in future, radiation will be known as magic moonbeams.”

Danny Tanzey

Thornton Cleveleys, Lancashire

• Trump’s government is not alone in its use of euphemisms. In England the government’s project to introduce a scheme of private health insurance is labelled “NHS reform”. And the associated project to slash, trash and privatise our health service has to be called “sustainability and transformation partnerships”. Just this morning I’ve seen an advertisement for a health conference where colleagues from Cumbria will describe “improving patient journeys across their STP footprint”. I assume that the ambulance service across the fells will be improved, though I worry about a surge in fractured metatarsals.

Kevin Donovan

Birkenhead, Merseyside

• Instruction to all government departments: Replace “cuts in services” with “efficiency savings”.

Leslie Gilbert

London

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters