Climatic Change

, Volume 105, Issue 1–2, pp 1–12 | Cite as

Global warming vs. climate change, taxes vs. prices: Does word choice matter?



Does “climate change” seem like a less serious problem than “global warming” to Americans and Europeans? Does describing the costs of climate change mitigation in terms of “higher taxes” instead of “higher prices” reduce public support for such efforts? In an experiment embedded in an American national survey, respondents were randomly assigned to rate the seriousness of “global warming,” “climate change,” or “global climate change.” Contrary to predictions made by a leading political strategist, the full sample and political Independents perceived “climate change” and “global warming” to be equally serious. Among Republicans, “climate change” was perceived to be more serious than “global warming,” whereas the reverse was true among Democrats. A similar experiment embedded in a survey of residents of 31 European countries showed that “global warming” and “climate change” were perceived to be equally serious problems. And an experiment embedded in an American survey showed that describing the increased costs of climate change mitigation legislation via “higher taxes” instead of via “higher prices” did not reduce popular support for such legislation, also contradicting a political strategy memo. Thus, word choice may sometimes affect public perceptions of the climate change seriousness or support for mitigation policies, but a single choice of terminology may not influence all people the same way, making strategic language choices difficult to implement.


Climate Change Global Warming Language Choice Seriousness Rating Future Global Warming 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brislin RW (1970) Back translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross-Cult Psychol 1:185–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butler K (2004) Winning words: George Lakoff says environmentalists need to watch their language. Sierra 89:54–56Google Scholar
  3. Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2008) A widening gap: republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment 50:26–35Google Scholar
  4. Dunlap RE, Xiao C, McCright AM (2001) Politics and environment in America: partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Env Polit 10:23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commission (2009) Eurobarometer 69.2: National and European Identity, European Elections, European Values, and Climate Change, March–May 2008, (Computer file). Conducted by TNS OPINION & SOCIAL, Brussels, requested and coordinated by the European Commission, Directorate General Press and Communication, Opinion Polls. ZA4744 [version identification], Cologne Germany: GESIS, 2009Google Scholar
  6. Krosnick JA, Schuman H (1988) Attitude intensity, importance, and certainty and susceptibility to response effects. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:940–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lakoff G (1996) Moral politics: what conservatives know that liberals don’t. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. Lakoff G (2004) Don’t think of an elephant: know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River JunctionGoogle Scholar
  9. Lorenzoni I, Leiserowitz A, De Franca Doria M, Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF (2006) Cross-national comparisons of image associations with “global warming” and “climate change” among laypeople in the United States of America and Great Britain. J Risk Res 9:265–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Luntz F (1988) Candidates, consultants, and campaigns: the style and substance of American electioneering. Blackwell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Luntz F (2002) The environment: a cleaner, safer, healthier America. Luntz Research, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  12. Luntz F (2007) Words that work: it’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. Hyperion, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Malka A, Krosnick JA (2009) The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Anal 29:633–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Senate EPW Staff (2009) A strategy for climate change: consumers vs. big business. Memo written to the House and Senate energy and environment staff, May 14, 2009.Google Scholar
  15. TNS Opinion & Social (2008) Europeans’ attitudes towards climate change. Special Eurobarometer 300, Wave 69.2. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. Whitmarsh L (2009) What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming”. Public Underst Sci 18:401–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations