Version of Record: [Link]

com/science/article/pii/S0921800921003669
Manuscript_3e7fa032cb5697cfb3603e4dd6dd9a02

Changing the World with Words? Euphemisms in Climate Change Issues

Gilles Grolleau

ESSCA School of Management, France

CEE-M, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, INRAE, Institut Agro, Montpellier, France

grolda@[Link]

Naoufel Mzoughi (Corresponding author)

INRAE, ECODEVELOPPEMENT, Avignon, France

[Link]@[Link]

Deborah Peterson

Crawford School of Public Policy – Australian National University

[Link]@[Link]

Marjorie Tendero

ESSCA School of Management, Angers, France

[Link]@[Link]

© 2021 published by Elsevier. This manuscript is made available under the Elsevier user license
[Link]
 1

Changing the World with Words? Euphemisms in Climate Change Issues

Abstract: Words matter when talking about climate change. They influence thinking and

ultimately behaviors. We contend that certain kinds of words frequently used in climate

change communication, namely euphemisms, can undermine the objectives of raising climate

change awareness and changing behaviors to reduce emissions. We characterize euphemisms

related to climate change issues and show how they are often manipulated to serve vested

interests opposing climate change action. In particular, we highlight euphemistic names of

astroturfing organizations that aim to persuade consumers or citizens. We conclude by

suggesting some practical ways to prevent or avoid detrimental consequences associated with

euphemisms and draw several policy implications.

Key-words: climate change; climate policy; euphemisms; hypocrisy; words.

1. Introduction

Words can seem unimportant when compared with the urgency and magnitude of climate

change. Yet, recent research emphasizes that even subtle words changes can significantly

influence opinion and behavior, well beyond what is usually assumed (Drews and Antal,

2016; Clot et al., 2017; Farrow et al., 2018; Schuldt et al., 2011; Shi et al., 2020), which is

well understood by politicians and journalists. In 2017, The Guardian revealed that staff at the

US Department of Agriculture were instructed to blacklist terms such as “climate change”,

“climate change adaption”, “reduce greenhouse gases” and “sequester carbon”. They were

instructed to use “weather extremes”, “resilience to weather extremes”, “build soil organic

matter, increase nutrient use efficiency” and “build soil organic matter” (Milman, 2017). In

2019, the same journal –one of the world’s most read newspaper websites – announced
 2

several word changes (Table 1) in favor of terms that they considered to more accurately

describe the “environmental crises” (Zeldin-O’Neill, 2019). The Guardian justified these

changes by “the urgency of climate crisis” requiring “robust new language to describe it”

(Chadwick, 2019).

Table 1. Word changes The Guardian recommended to its journalists and editors (Source: Zeldin-O’Neill, 2019)
Previous expressions Recommended expressions
“Climate change” “Climate emergency”, “climate crisis”
“Climate sceptic” “Climate science denier”, “climate denier”
“Global warming” “Global heating”
“Carbon emissions”, “carbon dioxide emissions” “Greenhouse gas emissions”
“Biodiversity” “Wildlife”
“Fish stocks” “Fish populations”

Words are not neutral (Drews and Antal, 2016; Clot et al., 2017), and the effect of

different labels (such as climate change versus climate crisis) is complicated. Their impact

depends on factors such as the gender, worldview and the individual’s values (Hung &

Bayrak, 2020). To increase policy effectiveness, beyond the objective policy content, we posit

word choices in climate policy and communication should be carefully considered to elicit the

desired behavioral changes. Indeed, words constitute an often-neglected lever that can be

mobilized to undermine or reinforce policy on a number of levels such as numbing or

awakening people, weakening, or reinforcing policy support, or delaying, or driving change.

After examining their considerable potential to support emissions reduction, we focus on

euphemisms – words or phrases used to avoid another word or phrase that may be unpleasant

or give offence1 – that are pervasive in climate change communication.

1
The Greek etymological origin of the word ‘euphemism’ means “speaking well of something”. The motivation

behind “speaking well’ may be manifold.

 3

2. Why words matter when communicating on climate change?

Language and thought are intertwined. Subtle variations in wording can cause significantly

affect judgment, memory and even behavior (Clot et al., 2017; Farrow et al., 2018; Hauser &

Schwarz, 2016). Policy words are not judged only on their objective meaning or content as

predicted by rational models. Words also trigger automatic processes (such as heuristics and

biases) that can make policies more or less effective. For instance, recent studies show that

Covid-19 related policies may have been far more effective in achieving their desired

outcomes by simply changing some of the words used (Ajzenman et al., 2020; Padan, 2020;

Miller, 2020). According to Padan (2020), the term “crisis” did not encourage the adoption of

preventive measures while the term “emergency” did.

Similarly, climate policy objectives can be better achieved by carefully selecting

words that are more likely to achieve desired outcomes. The words chosen to describe a

phenomenon are highly influential. For instance, Woods et al. (2012) illustrated how

unsympathetic religious metaphors used in 122 U.K. newspaper articles were used to

misrepresent and denigrate scientific consensus about climate change (Woods et al., 2012).

Atanasova & Koteyko (2017) showed how the Guardian Online and Mail Online used the

“war” metaphor to communicate the urgency of action to address climate change. Flusberg et

al. (2017) investigated how skeptical attitudes toward climate change can be modified using

metaphors. They found that the war metaphor is more effective than a “race” frame: it

conveys a feeling of urgency and pushes participants to express a greater willingness to

increase conservation behaviors. Rather than basing word choice only on scientific and legal

grounds, policymakers should inform their policy framing and formulation with well-crafted

studies and experiments at an early stage to understand how various formulations of a similar

policy will affect thinking and behaviors of citizens and other targets. In tough budgetary

times, words can offer a potentially less costly lever likely to provoke first-order

consequences.
 4

In the following sections, we examine a particular type of words and expressions that

have become pervasive in climate change discussions, namely euphemisms. Although

euphemisms can be beneficial or detrimental to climate-related changes, we focus on the most

pervasive ones used by corporate and political actors to deflate climate change action.

Euphemisms are also used to preserve the recipient sensibilities such as with those of eco-

anxious individuals, i.e., individuals anxious about climate emergency or who have persistent

worries about environmental issues (Whitcomb, 2021). However, this motivation is less

frequent in the cases of corporate or political messages about climate change. Indeed, the

previously mentioned uses correspond more to a characterization of euphemisms as “the

language of evasion, hypocrisy, prudery, and deceit” (Holder, 2008, p. vii).

3. Euphemisms in the context of climate change

Three characteristics are fundamental to delineate euphemisms. First, euphemisms are based

on word substitution. The substitution replaces one (or several) plain term(s) that are

considered as undesirable with other terms that are judged more appropriate (Casas Gómez,

2009). This substitution often leads to euphemistic expressions that are often longer than their

plain counterpart. For example, acid rain is referred to as “atmospheric deposition of

anthropogenically derived substances”. Word substitution typically mobilizes two kinds of

framing effects: (i) the equivalency effect, where using different, but logically equivalent,

expressions cause individuals to alter their preferences, and (ii) the emphasis effect where a

subset of considerations is emphasized to push individuals to focus on some aspects of a

situation, relegating other considerations to the background (Druckman, 2001; Farrow et al.,

2021). We argue that most euphemisms used in climate change issues can be analyzed as

examples of the emphasis framing effect used to push people to prioritize a certain set of

meanings. For example, “fossil fuels” have been rebranded in a press release of the US
 5

Department of Energy as “molecules of US freedom” (Ellsmor, 2019). One approach to

measuring the effect of such euphemisms could be asking study participants to express (and

compare) their immediate thoughts, attitudes and behavioral intentions (e.g., willingness to

act) when faced with plain terms and corresponding euphemisms (see, for example, Farrow et

al., 2021).

Kreps and Monin (2011) argued that individuals have idealized cognitive templates.

When a real-world situation matches these moral templates, individuals are alerted that they

should use a moral or ethical frame to respond to the situation. This matching can be

(dis)activated by subtle changes in framing. For instance, a plainer term may trigger

moralization (e.g., smoggy areas) while a euphemistic alternative (e.g., ozone non-attainment

area) may completely focus the attention to other considerations. Euphemisms are frequently

used to prevent a match with an available moral template and facilitate moral disengagement

(Bandura, 1999; Tenbrunsel and Messick, 2004).

In a well-cited paper, Lakoff (2010) emphasized that framing is both powerful and

pervasive – all thought and communication involves framing. He defined environmental

frames as “the (typically unconscious) conceptual structures that people have in their brain

circuitry to understand environmental issues” (p. 74). While recognizing that words

themselves are not frames, he emphasized that words can be selected to activate desired

frames. Lakoff suggests that in environmental realm, interest groups that have understood the

power of frames for a long time have applied consistent effort to build frames that can be

easily activated through the use and repetition of key words and phrases. Frequent repetition

of pre-existing dominant environmental frames by the media serve to reinforce their

effectiveness. Lakoff (2010) argued “What is needed is a constant effort to build up the

background frames needed to understand the crisis, while building up neural circuitry to

inhibit the wrong frames.” (p. 74). We contend that words used to communicate messages
 6

about climate change often activate pre-existing frames that will not serve the pursued goals

nor contribute to building new and adequate frames. The issue is complex, and we note that

some authors (e.g., Matthes, 2009) criticize the misuse of framing theory while others in the

context of environmental issues (e.g., Ytterstad, 2015) propose to abandon an overreliance on

framing and advocate that “global warming is an ethical challenge which communication

scholars can best help solve with a combination of natural realism and political advocacy.” (p.

1).

Second, euphemisms frequently reduce the emotional content by creating distance and

serve to soften what is conveyed by the plain terms (Casas Gómez, 2009). Euphemisms are a

linguistic manipulation to make some communication about difficult topics (more) socially

acceptable or to reframe some issues. While this sometimes comes at the expense of clarity,

reframing can also support development of understanding, a positive attitude, better ability to

recall the concept and reduced anxiety related to sought-after behavioral change. Substituting

the more dramatic phrase “global warming” to “climate change” is an example (Lineman et

al., 2015).

Third, euphemisms are frequently used in a social interaction where two or more

parties communicate. Frequently used in self-interest, they can also be other-oriented, such as

when they are employed to preserve the sensibilities of eco-anxious individuals (Whitcomb,

2021). Euphemisms can also be used for self-deception. For instance, an individual can

engage in unethical behaviors and preserve a positive self-image by relabeling his/her

behaviors in sugar-coated terms that create emotional distance (Bandura, 1999; Tenbrunsel &

Messick, 2004). For example, “routine exceedances” refer to an industrial plant’s regular

violation of clean air or water standards (Beans, 2014).

Euphemisms are also distinguished on a variety of dimensions such as valence

(positive versus negative), areas of application, degree of consciousness, geographical,

 7

cultural, and historical contexts (Burridge, 2012). A repeatedly used euphemism often loses

its euphemistic power. The euphemism can become tainted over time, leading to a

euphemistic treadmill where a new euphemism replaces the tainted one and so forth

(Burridge, 2012). Several euphemisms have been devised intentionally and consciously by

climate change denial promoters to reduce the emotional appeal and deflate the concerns

related to climate change issues. In the same vein, euphemisms can reduce (or even

counteract) the impact of fear-based campaigns (Tannenbaum et al., 2015), to raise climate

change awareness and actions. Moreover, the true intent of the euphemism user can remain

hidden. Following the classification of euphemism functions by Burridge (2012), we apply

them to climate change issues using real-world examples (Table 2).

Table 2. Types of euphemisms, their functions and examples (source: Burridge, 2012)
Euphemism type Function Example
Protective To shield and avoid offense Offset vs. tax, especially for people who consider taxation as theft by the
state
Underhand To mystify and misrepresent Build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency vs. reduce
greenhouse gases
Nuisance flooding vs. sea-level rise
Soil enhancer vs. manure
Uplifting To talk up and inflate Chief officer climate change
Nature-based solutions
Provocative To reveal and inspire Increased density vs. overpopulation
Cohesive To act as an in-group “Clean coal” or “ethical oil” among promoters of fossil fuels
trademark
Ludic To have fun and entertain “A $100,000 fine was not a fine but (…) a "donation" to the region's air
quality”

Going further, we introduce a two-dimensional framework: (i) whether the euphemism

reinforces the truth or available evidence or undermines the truth or available evidence and

(ii) the likely effects of the euphemisms on climate change (positive versus negative).
 8

Figure 1: Characterizing climate change euphemisms in a 2-dimensional space

Positive impact on climate

change issues

Case A Case C
(Euphemism use acts (Best situation but
as a warning signal) scarce)

Truth undermining Truth supporting

Case B Case D
(Worst and most (Scientific jargon that
frequent situation) numbs people)

Negative impact on climate

change issues

We are especially interested in the use of euphemisms that directly or indirectly reduce

the likelihood or the magnitude of engaging in climate actions. Detrimental euphemisms in

corporate and political communication about climate change may serve several goals:

diminishing the perceived danger of situations, increasing the perceived moral permissibility

of an action, and reducing public accountability for unethical behaviors (Gladney &

Rittenburg, 2005; Rittenburg et al., 2016).2 An interesting feature of well-crafted euphemisms

is their ability to avoid lies and contradictory statements when addressing various

stakeholders (La Cour & Kromann, 2011; Walker et al., 2021). Nevertheless, the short-term

benefits generated by euphemisms can be counterbalanced by long-term detrimental

consequences such as loss of trust and image degradation.

2
Determining the intents of a specific euphemism’s user is challenging but beyond the scope of our contribution.

It can be difficult to determine when an individual is making a deliberate attempt to disguise or misrepresent

something, and when s/he just has a genuine difference of view about the best policy option to follow.
 9

4. Words that work: The euphemistic names of astroturfing organizations

Astroturfing organizations can be described as fake grassroots movements. Astroturfing

designates “a deceptive communication strategy initiated by a political actor and

manufacturing public support to influence public policies” (Lits, 2021, p. 229). Environmental

issues, including climate change, are often targeted by astroturfers (McNutt & Boland, 2007;

Hobbs et al., 2020; Lits, 2020). For instance, the coal industry developed astroturf campaigns

in the United States to defend their interests: among 72 interest groups identified as active on

the shale gas debate, 12 groups were astroturfers (Lits, 2020).

Astroturfing organizations typically use euphemistic names that disguise their real

identities and/or agenda that might otherwise be considered harsh or unpleasant. Their names

frequently convey a sense of in-group membership (by including words such as citizens,

consumers) and trustworthiness (e.g., clean, sound) using well-selected euphemisms (Lits,

2020). For instance, several fossil-fuel industry front groups sponsor organizations with

misleading euphemistic names such as “National Wetlands Coalition”, “Global Climate

Coalition”, “Greening Earth Society”, “Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy” or

“American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy”. First impressions matter and these

organizations seem explicitly dedicated to promoting environmental and climate change

issues. They frequently target legitimate nonprofit and grassroots organizations with whom

they can be confused. These euphemistic names conceal the true sponsors’ interests and affect

public opinion in directions that do not align with climate science (Pfau et al., 2007).

Naming astroturfing organizations is a strategic choice. Organization names can be

one of the first and simplest steps to persuade a targeted audience. For example, the

Responsible Energy Citizen Coalition launched a campaign in 2012 to influence two

European Parliament reports regarding shale gas exploration (Lits, 2021). This organization

described itself as “an association of natural persons, representatives of self-governments and

 10

local authorities as well as social organizations” and was financially supported by three

corporations with a significant interest in commercially developing shale gas (Lits, 2021).

According to the Elaboration-Likelihood Model of persuasion, there are central (effortful

information processing) and peripheral (use of heuristics) routes of persuasion (Petty &

Cacioppo, 1986). The model suggests the persuasive power of a message can be reinforced by

exploiting heuristics about the qualities attributed to the messenger. The more similar the

messenger is to the target audience (in-group effect) or the more trustworthy the messenger is

considered to be, the more likely the message delivered will be accepted without critically

evaluating its content (Bolsen et al., 2019; Brewer & Ley, 2013).

The companies funding astroturfing organizations can embrace double standards. They

may describe themselves as environmental stewards, while still supporting well-named

astroturfing organizations working behind the scenes to promote climate disinformation or at

least views that better align with their agenda (Heald, 2017). If the funding relationships are

disclosed, these businesses can both displace responsibility and demonstrate plausible

deniability. Moreover, using experimental data, Cho et al. (2011) demonstrated that

astroturfing organizations can remain persuasive even when their funding sources are

disclosed. In short, euphemistic names exploit an immediate perceived emotional proximity to

sway people’s opinions or emotions to a particular side, frequently to deny or lessen climate

change.3 In the case of the shale gas industry, astroturfing organizations use words such as

“economy”, “creating jobs” and “growth” to describe the benefits of this industry (Lits, 2020).

3
Astroturfing organizations are also successful at climate information because they have resources (e.g., money,

power, competences) to design and manage influencing campaigns.

 11

5. Policy implications and conclusion

Words are powerful instruments that influence thinking and behaviors related to climate

change. They can numb people, lead them to be passive or can encourage them to take

responsibility and appropriate actions. They offer a nudge that can generate first-order effect

that will help or harm the pursued goals. Our analysis suggests several implications.

First, researchers who want to influence policy need to give more attention to research

communication, including developing skills required to effectively use social media such as

tweets. Research communication could become a required or highly recommended course in a

policy related degree. Climate scientists are typically not cognition or communication

specialists and they often use, either purposefully or subconsciously, a model of human

behaviour based on deliberate and unemotional reasoning where facts and scientific evidence

are the most important elements of their argumentation (Lakoff, 2010).

Second, although politicians and top bureaucrats are obviously aware of word power, we

invite policymakers to take greater account of the power of words and recognize it as a

central part of the policy cycle, especially in the climate change domain. For instance, many

basic text books about the policy cycle omit the crucial step of developing a communication

strategy. These decision makers should understand that their messages are received in a

context where some groups have already built strong frames, well aligned with their interests.

We observe that, policy makers do not play a one-shot game where a single well-worded

message will by itself result in desired changes. They are engaged in a long term construction

of frames to counter or replace preexisting ones, where carefully selected words constitute

elements that can activate the adequate frames.

Third, our recommendation should not be confused with a one-size-fits-all approach

where an ideal word or expression is identified once and for all and applied indiscriminately.

We suggest tailoring and testing frames with target audiences (see e.g., Hung and Bayrak,
 12

2020). Vocabulary is already used in various circles to influence and even manipulate and not

necessarily with the best intentions (Cho et al., 2011). Rather than allowing scientific, legal,

or linguistic considerations to determine word choice, we suggest considering the

psychological and behavioral reactions of policy audiences, notably the frequently overlooked

automatic part (System 1). Words are selected for their objective content but also for their

potential to activate unconscious automatic processes and emotions in people. This analysis

can lead to tradeoffs between words that were not originally considered, e.g., by sacrificing

scientific precision to make the policy more effective (Reddy, 2020) or making subtle

variations to address audiences characteristics.

Another implication is to consider the ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ sides of euphemisms use.

The use of misleading euphemisms could be reduced by emphasizing the risks involved to the

user such as potential legal actions, trust loss, and long-term negative consequences. Another

option is to help people spot euphemism use and increase their awareness of the influence of

these euphemisms on thinking and behaviors. Sophisticated methods are currently emerging

to detect euphemisms, especially in online communication (Zhu et al., 2021). Developing

media and environmental literacy notably in online environments, reinforcing skepticism

defenses, critical thinking skills and appropriate online behaviors can prevent or reduce

passive or automatic reactions to euphemism exposure and may contribute to proactive

behaviors. Developing media and environmental literacy in school curricula can enhance

understanding of environmental issues and prepare individuals to participate in environmental

decision-making processes and reduce the likelihood that they will become victims of

astroturfing attempts. Equipping people with ways to quickly detect whether a message comes

from a dubious source (e.g., used frames, lack of corroborating sources, personal attacks

rather than content-related arguments) could make them less prone to be influenced by

misleading euphemisms, although recent evidence is not so encouraging (Cho et al., 2011).
 13

For instance, when a seemingly reputable organization uses euphemistic arguments, it makes

sense to develop in the audience the desire to take a deeper look at its funding, governance

arrangements and representatives to detect potential connections with sponsors that the

organization may prefer to remain hidden. It is also important to acknowledge that people

with strong political views of their own can make anti-climate change euphemisms seem more

effective than they really are because they already hold those beliefs and avoid dissonance. It

may also be useful to trace the trajectories of specific euphemisms, from their emergence to

their growth and diffusion, including their lifecycle and disappearance given the well-known

euphemism treadmill.

References

Ajzenman, N., Cavalcanti, T., Da Mata, D. 2020. More than words: Leaders’ speech and risky

behavior during a pandemic. SSRN Electronic Journal.

[Link]

Atanasova, D., Koteyko, N. 2017. Metaphors in Guardian Online and Mail Online opinion-

page content on climate change: War, religion, and politics. Environmental

Communication, 11(4), 452-469.

Bandura, A. 1999. Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. In Brewer, M.

B., Miller, A.G., Kenny, D.A., Norem, J.K. (Eds.). Perspectives on Evil and Violence. A

Special Issue of Personality and Social Psychology Review. Psychology Press.

Beans, L. 2014. Eco euphemisms that confuse our understanding of environmental

destruction. EcoWatch, March 29. [Link]

[Link]

Bolsen, T., Palm, R., Kingsland, J.T. 2019. The impact of message source on the effectiveness

of communications about climate change. Science Communication, 41(4), 464-487.

 14

Brewer, P.R., Ley, B.L. 2013. Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of

scientific information about the environment. Science Communication, 35(1), 115-137.

Burridge, K. 2012. Euphemism and language change: The sixth and seventh ages. Lexis, 7.

Casas Gómez, M. 2009. Towards a new approach to the linguistic definition of euphemism.

Language Sciences, 31(6), 725-739.

Chadwick, P. 2019. The urgency of climate crisis needed robust new language to describe it.

The Guardian, June 16.

[Link]

new-language-guardian-katharine-viner

Cho, C.H., Martens, M.L., Kim, H., Rodrigue, M. 2011. Astroturfing global warming: It isn’t

always greener on the other side of the fence. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 571-587.

Clot, S., Grolleau, G., Méral, P. 2017. Payment vs. compensation for ecosystem services: Do

words have a voice in the design of environmental conservation programs? Ecological

Economics, 135, 299-303.

Drews, S., Antal, M. 2016. Degrowth: A “missile word” that backfires? Ecological

Economics, 126, 182-187.

Druckman, J.N. 2001. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political

Behavior, 23(3), 225-256.

Ellsmor, J. 2019. Trump administration rebrands fossil fuels as “molecules of U.S. freedom.”

Forbes, May 30. [Link]

administration-rebrands-carbon-dioxide-as-molecules-of-u-s-freedom/?sh=775e2cf13a24

Farrow, K., Grolleau, G., Mzoughi, N. 2018. What in the word! The scope for the effect of

word choice on economic behavior. Kyklos, 71(4), 557-580.

 15

Farrow, K., Grolleau, G., Mzoughi, N. 2021. ‘Let’s call a spade a spade, not a gardening

tool’: How euphemisms shape moral judgement in corporate social responsibility domains.

Journal of Business Research, 131, 254-267.

Flusberg, S.J., Matlock, T., Thibodeau, P.H. 2017. Metaphors for the war (or race) against

climate change. Environmental Communication, 11(6), 769-783.

Gladney, G.A., Rittenburg, T. 2005. Euphemistic text affects attitudes, behavior. Newspaper

Research Journal, 26(1), 28-41.

Kreps, T., Monin, B. 2011. Doing well by doing good? Ambivalent moral framing in

organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 99-123.

Hauser, D.J., Schwarz, N. 2016. Semantic prosody and judgement. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 145(7), 882-896.

Heald, S. 2017. Climate silence, moral disengagement, and self-efficacy: How Albert

Bandura’s theories inform our climate-change predicament. Environment: Science and

Policy for Sustainable Development, 59(6), 4-15.

Hobbs, M., Della Bosca, H., Schlosberg, D., Sun, C. 2020. Turf wars: Using social media

network analysis to examine the suspected astroturfing campaign for the Adani Carmichael

Coal mine on Twitter. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(2).

Holder, R.W. 2008. How Not to Say What You Mean: A Dictionary of Euphemisms. Oxford

University Press.

Hung, L.-S., Bayrak, M.M. 2020. Comparing the effects of climate change labelling on

reactions of the Taiwanese public. Nature Communications, 11(1), 6052.

La Cour, A., Kromann, J. 2011. Euphemisms and hypocrisy in corporate philanthropy.

Business Ethics: A European Review, 20(3), 267-279.

Lakoff, G. 2010. Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental

Communication, 4(1), 70-81.

 16

Lineman, M., Do, Y., Kim, J.Y., Joo, G.-J. 2015. Talking about climate change and global

warming. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0138996.

Lits, B. 2020. Detecting astroturf lobbying movements. Communication and the Public, 5(3–

4), 164-177.

Lits, B. 2021. Exploring astroturf lobbying in the EU: The case of Responsible Energy Citizen

Coalition. European Policy Analysis, 7(1), 226-239.

Matthes, J. 2009. What’s in a frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in world’s

leading communication journals, 1990-2005. Journalism and Mass Communication

Quarterly, 86(2), 349-367.

McNutt, J., Boland, K. 2007. Astroturf, technology and the future of community mobilization:

Implications for nonprofit theory. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 34(3), 165-

178.

Milman, O. 2017. US federal department is censoring use of term ‘climate change’, emails

reveal. The Guardian, August 7.

[Link]

censorship-emails

Padan, C. 2020. Coronavirus: On crisis, emergency, and the power of words. Institute for

National Security Studies, 1353. [Link]

Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Petty, R.

E. Cacioppo, J.T. (Eds.). Communication and Persuasion. Springer New York.

Pfau, M., Haigh, M.M., Sims, J., Wigley, S. 2007. The influence of corporate front-group

stealth campaigns. Communication Research, 34(1), 73-99.

Reddy, S.J. 2020. Hypocrisy they name: “Colorado river flow shrinks from climate crisis,

risking severe water shortages"—A note. Journal of Agriculture and Aquaculture, 2(2), 1-

14.
 17

Rittenburg, T.L., Gladney, G.A., Stephenson, T. 2016. The effects of euphemism usage in

business contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 315-320.

Schuldt, J.P., Konrath, S.H., Schwarz, N. 2011. “Global warming” or “climate change”?:

Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opinion Quarterly,

75(1), 115-124.

Shi, W., Fu, H., Wang, P., Chen, C., Xiong, J. 2020. #Climatechange vs. #Globalwarming:

Characterizing two competing climate discourses on Twitter with semantic network and

temporal analyses. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,

17(3), 1062.

Tannenbaum, M.B., Hepler, J., Zimmerman, R.S., Saul, L., Jacobs, S., Wilson, K., Albarracín,

D. 2015. Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories.

Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1178-1204.

Tenbrunsel, A.E., Messick, D.M. 2004. Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical

behavior. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 223-236.

Walker, A.C., Turpin, M.H., Meyers, E.A., Stolz, J.A., Fugelsang, J.A., Koehler, D.J. 2021.

Controlling the narrative: Euphemistic language affects judgments of actions while

avoiding perceptions of dishonesty. Cognition, 211, 104633.

Whitcomb, I. 2021. Therapists are reckoning with eco-anxiety. Scientific American, April 19.

[Link]

Woods, R., Fernández, A., Coen, S. 2012. The use of religious metaphors by UK newspapers

to describe and denigrate climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 21(3), 323-

339.

Ytterstad, A. 2015. Framing global warming: Is that really the question? A realist, gramscian

critique of the framing paradigm in media and communication research. Environmental

Communication, 9(1), 1-19.

 18

Zeldin-O’Neill, S. 2019. “It’s a crisis, not a change”: The six Guardian language changes on

climate matters. The Guardian, October 16.

[Link]

climate-environment

Zhu, W., Gong, H., Bansal, R., Weinberg, Z., Christin, N., Fanti, G., Bhat, S. 2021. Self-

supervised euphemism detection and identification for content moderation. Proceedings of

the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. [Link]