User:Notagainst/sandbox

Mirriam-Webster defines crisis as "an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending, especially one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome". Lexico describes it as: "a time of intense difficulty or danger (and) a time when a difficult or important decision must be made." Google provides the following synonyms: catastrophe, calamity, cataclysm, emergency, and disaster. Analysing how crises affect organisations, Seeger, Sellnow, and Ulmer argue that crises have four defining characteristics. They argue that crises are:
 * unexpected, and non-routine events
 * involve series of events that create high levels of uncertainty and
 * present a threat or perceived threat to an organization's high priority goals.

Venette adds that a "crisis is a process of transformation where the old system can no longer be maintained." Therefore the fourth defining quality of a crisis is the need for change.

Changes to the environment in the last one hundred years meet all four of these criteria. The level of green house gases (at over 400 ppm) in the atmosphere is the highest its been in 650,000 years - that's non-routine. In each of its reports, the IPCC has made a point of stating varying degrees of certainty (and uncertainty) about different global warming scenarios, and revises the degree of uncertainty with each new report - based on environmental events and advances in scientific understanding of those events since the previous report.

The IPCC, and many other scientific organisations, conduct their work and publish these reports because of the risk or perceived threat to humanity posed by human-induced climate change. The scientific consensus is that the untoward rise in greenhouse gases is caused by human activity and that humans need to adjust their lifestyles because the reliance on fossil fuels (the old system) cannot be sustained.

Venette also points to the importance of effective communication in the process of crisis management.

The IPCC communicates scientific information and future risk scenarios in as neutral, perhaps understated language (see Conservative language used by IPCC). Two non-scientists who have been effective at communicating the message that climate change involves a series of unexpected events, high levels of uncertainty and presents a threat to high priority goals (in particular, our continued survival) are Al Gore and Greta Thunberg.

Framing and language
A study by SPARK Neuro found that hearing “climate crisis” generated at least 60 percent more of an emotional response in respondents than “climate change.” And you don’t need scientific research to tell you that when something provokes a stronger emotional reaction, it’s also much more likely to provoke action.

The terms “global warming” and “climate change” might not be the best phrases to get the public engaged. There’s no shortage of alternatives. Climate scientist Peter Kalmus recommends “climate breakdown.” The New York Times recently used “climate chaos.” Some scientists suggest “global heating.”

New analysis from Public Citizen shows that even when nightly news and Sunday talk shows do cover climate, their reporting almost always lacks the sense of urgency and gravity that an existential threat demands. In 2018, only 50 of 1,429 segments on climate (3.5 percent) referred to the threat as a “crisis” or “emergency.”

How the news treats climate matters. After all, words matter. The words reporters and anchors use to talk about the issue shape the perceptions of millions. If they’re not talking about climate as a crisis, entire communities and countries may not see it that way and fail to act. Now while we still have time.

Environmental activist, Bill McKibben, perceives the threat to humanity to be so dire that climate change is the enemy - and the solution is declare war on it.