The fight to decarbonize our planet is at a crossroads, and the stakes have never been higher. But here’s the shocking truth: even climate insiders are questioning whether we’re using the right language to tackle this crisis. Over the past year, the global effort to combat climate change has faced relentless setbacks. Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement—again—and his attempts to dismantle environmental policies like the Inflation Reduction Act have dealt a devastating blow. His administration’s push for ‘energy dominance’ and the shutdown of critical weather research programs underscore a dangerous disregard for science. Abroad, the situation isn’t much better. China’s climate pledges have fallen flat, and even Europe seems torn between its green ambitions and economic pressures.
Amid this chaos, we decided it was time to check in with the experts—55 of the brightest and most outspoken voices in climate science, policy, and innovation. These are the people shaping our climate future, from White House advisors to outspoken critics of mainstream environmentalism. We asked them the tough questions: Which decarbonization technologies are still lagging? Who in the Trump administration has been the biggest obstacle? And just how hot is our planet expected to get by 2100?
But here’s where it gets controversial: Many of these insiders are calling for a radical shift in how we talk about climate change. One venture capitalist bluntly stated, ‘I would just get rid of the word ‘climate’ completely.’ A former Washington official echoed this sentiment, arguing that ‘climate change’ has become too politicized. Instead, they advocate for focusing on specific sectors like energy, agriculture, and transportation. ‘You’re in a business,’ they added, ‘there is no climate business.’
This isn’t just about semantics. It’s about reframing the conversation to make it more actionable and less polarizing. For instance, one expert suggested moving away from terms like ‘climate emergency’ or ‘climate justice,’ which have lost their clarity over time. Another called for ditching jargon like ‘net zero’ and ‘carbon neutrality,’ arguing they’ve become buzzwords that obscure real progress.
And this is the part most people miss: Even the way we discuss global summits like COP (the Conference of the Parties) is under scrutiny. Todd Stern, former U.S. climate diplomat, insists on calling it ‘the COP,’ not just ‘COP,’ as a matter of precision—a small but telling example of how language shapes our approach to this crisis.
Despite the challenges, there’s a surprising sense of optimism among these insiders. While Trump’s policies may be setting the U.S. back in the short term, long-term trends remain promising. For example, a plurality of experts now believe China will peak its emissions this decade, sooner than previously thought.
So, where do we go from here? The experts agree: it’s time to stop talking in vague, politicized terms and start focusing on tangible solutions. But here’s the question we leave to you: Is ditching the term ‘climate change’ a step forward, or does it risk diluting the urgency of the crisis? Let us know in the comments—this debate is far from over.
