Stop Calling it Climate “Mitigation”
Mitigation is a term we often hear regarding climate change. Rather than helping to inform and clarify, it may be part of the confusion. Mitigation has two very different meanings, even in the field of climate policy. Also, it is not a word in common vocabulary for the public. The two entirely different meanings regarding climate change are:
A) mitigation means to slow the warming, either by the use of less fossil fuel, which causes the elevated level of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas (“GHG”), or by finding ways to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, or other “geo-engineering” such as reducing the amount of sunlight we receive.
B) mitigation also refers to reducing the direct and indirect impact of climate change, most commonly used in the sense of “flood hazard mitigation” which means to design our built environment so that it is less susceptible to flood damage, or can better recover, when there is a flood. To add to the confusion, this use of the term mitigate is actually part of adaptation, which is often framed as the alternative to mitigation.
So if it means two entirely different things in the same field, why is it used so often? Because we like to use jargon – specialized terms. It becomes a language or code within our circles and culture. For example, doctors write QID on a prescribed medication, rather than “4 x day” which would actually be more clear. And scientists say “spatial temporal” when space and time, would communicate better to a larger audience. We love jargon. It means we know something others do not. That is not good for communicating with mass audiences.
Furthermore, mitigation is not a common word in use by the general public. In newspapers and television, there is a guideline to use the vocabulary of a sixth grade student. Mitigation is not in that vocabulary. While most will work out the meaning, many have to think about it. And then there is the issue of two entirely different meanings just cited.
If we are going to solve the climate change crisis we need to communicate better. It may be oversimplification, but here are my substitutes for “we need to mitigate”:
- We must slow the warming.
- We need to reduce flood damage, with better design and engineering.
To solve problems, the first requirement is to clearly communicate. We can start by avoiding the use of the words mitigate and mitigation.