We use cookies where necessary to allow us to understand how people interact with our website and content, so that we can continue to improve our service.
We only ever receive anonymous information, and cannot track you across other websites.
View our privacy policy
The Climate Just Map tool shows which places may be most disadvantaged through climate impacts.
It aims to raise awareness about how social vulnerability combined with exposure to hazards, like flooding and heat, may lead to uneven impacts in different neighbourhoods, causing climate disadvantage. The maps can be used alongside other local knowledge to identify where actions may be needed.
There are maps on flooding (river/coastal flooding and surface water flooding), and heat and fuel poverty.
A new survey has found that two-thirds of people around the globe have not heard of the term ‘climate justice’, and less than 1-in-5 feel they have a good understanding of what it means. But despite a lack of awareness about the terminology, a clear majority (70%) felt that climate change is driven by capitalism and colonisation. The study by Charles Ogunbode and colleagues builds on previous work addressing engagement with climate justice, by suggesting that people are aware of the key issues underpinning climate justice, even if they don’t consciously link these with the concept. People’s beliefs about climate justice-related issues were also found to positively influence their climate actions and support for policies – suggesting there is much value in building greater awareness.
What’s in a name? The question of what the best – most persuasive, or least polarising – term for climate change is, has a long history.
On the one hand, small tweaks to individual words or short phrases are unlikely to be driving big differences in perceptions one way or another. People’s values, worldviews, political ideology and increasingly the perceived fairness of different climate policies, are what drives public engagement.
But whether its the editorial choices made by leading international newspapers, to the framing of campaigns that drive media coverage of climate activism, linguistic choices do carry some weight. Previous research has argued that some terms (e.g. ‘global warming’) are more emotive; campaigners have criticised ‘climate change’ as a term for lacking urgency.
In a new open-access paper, researchers tested a wide range of different terms, including ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’, ‘climate crisis’, climate emergency’ and ‘climate justice’, in a survey of over 5000 US residents and concluded:
Overall, “climate change” and “global warming” were rated as most familiar and most concerning, and “climate justice” the least, with ratings for “climate crisis” and “climate emergency” falling in between.
Moreover, we find no evidence for “climate crisis” or “climate emergency” eliciting more perceived urgency than “climate change” or “global warming.”
We therefore recommend sticking with familiar terms, conclude that changing terminology is likely not the key solution for promoting climate action, and suggest alternative communication strategies.
The ‘alternative communication strategies’ might include identifying tangible ways in which audiences with different moral and political values could benefit from specific climate policies, or ensuring communities impacted by new energy infrastructure, or changes to urban travel systems, feel adequately consulted.
Confirming previous research around the general lack of familiarity with the term ‘climate justice’, the paper also noted that willingness to support climate-friendly policies and eat less red meat were lowest for ‘climate justice’ (which was the least familiar term tested).
This isn’t an argument for downplaying the importance of the issues the term refers to, which are central to both international climate governance and the implementation of specific in-country policies. But it does underscore the lack of recognition of the phrase among many public audiences, a finding which has also been observed in UK research.