I took a look over at Stowe Boyd’s blog today after chatting it up with him this weekend, and I found a featured post which I missed on the first go around: “Global Weirding“. The term was brought to the mainstream by Thomas Friedman, who gets a whole lot of coverage for writing about globalization, despite the fact this guy knows a lot more about it. But I digress: the the term is certain a far better marketing catch-all than the flaccid euphamism “climate change” or the tropical vacation image-inducing “global warming”. To quote Friedman:
“And sweet-sounding “global warming” doesn’t really capture what’s likely to happen. I prefer the term “global weirding,” coined by Hunter Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, because the rise in average global temperature is going to lead to all sorts of crazy things — from hotter heat spells and droughts in some places, to colder cold spells and more violent storms, more intense flooding, forest firesand species loss in other places.”
Like Stowe, I’m also wondering why there isn’t rioting on the streets at the current administration’s denialist policy stance. He believes milquetoast marketing is to blame, which I agree with. I also think the enormity of the problem is keeping people on the sidelines. There’s a perception (at least in mainstream America) that there is significant pain in switching the way we produce and consume energy, with very little added benefit. What I love about the term climate weirding is the connotation that doing nothing is inherently the riskiest and most painful proposition.
Needless to say, you’ll be seeing this term on this blog a lot from now on, and I hope you’ll use “Global Weirding” in your writings and dialogue as well.