Words matter when talking about sustainability

"I need to go to the shop to get groceries."

"Ah, but whyyyyyyyy? I'm tiiiiiiired! I just want to go hoooooome!"

I've just picked Ayva up from school.

"Because we need groceries."

"How long will it take?"

"Not long. I just need a few things."

"How many things?"

"I don't know. Like three?"

"What three things?"

"Noodles, milk, and butter."

"And that's it?"

"Yes. And maybe a doughnut for you, if you don't complain."

"YAAAAAY!! Doughnut! Doughnut! Doughnut!"

"Can we get the doughnut first?"

"Yes."

"And then the noodles, then the butter, then the milk. And that's it. And then we can go home?"

"Yes."

"Ok. But doughnut first."

Unless there's something in it for her, Ayva hates going to the shop.

I try to avoid taking her at all, but sometimes it's unavoidable.

For those times, I've figured out that if I'm clear about what we need to get, it's less painful for both of us.

No browsing. No time-wasting. Just get in, get the things, and get out.

Starting with the doughnut.

Concrete language, i.e., "we need noodles, milk, and butter" is more palatable for an impatient seven-year-old.

Unlike the abstract "we need groceries", which leads to questions like:

• How many groceries?

• How long will it take?

• Can we get a trolley? No, a big trolley, because I want to sit in it.

• Are we done yet?

• Are we halfway?

• Argh! Why must I move my feet to make space for the milk? I was here first!

• Are we done yet?

• Can I have this Elsa hairband, even though I hate wearing hairbands and will wear it on my wrist?

• How many more things do we need to get?

• Are we done yet?

• Mom, look! Elsa toothpaste! Can we get it?

• Are we done yet?

• How about now?

• Can I have a doughnut?

Words matter

When it comes to sustainability statements and commitments, many businesses use abstract language, like:

• Carbon-neutral

• Green

• Earth-friendly

• Sustainably sourced

• Net zero

But these abstract terms lead to a ton of questions, like:

• What does "green" mean?

• How do you sustainably source your products?

• What did you do to become carbon neutral?

• In what ways are you environmentally friendly?

• How will you measure success?

• Are you done yet?

• What do you still need to do?

• What if you fail?

• Where are the doughnuts?

Abstract language can be misleading, create confusion, and is often used by companies to greenwash.

Some businesses use abstract language to create an impression that they're taking meaningful action when they're actually doing very little – or nothing at all – to address the problem.

It lacks clarity and specificity.

It obscures accountability and responsibility.

It doesn't motivate people to take action.

Say what you mean; mean what you say

Concrete language, on the other hand, ensures clarity and accountability and leads to greater understanding and engagement.

It's the difference between:

"We're committed to protecting the environment."

And...

"We're committed to reducing the use of pesticides and fertilisers by 40% in the next two years to reduce water pollution."

It's the difference between:

"We're reducing emissions."

And...

"We're reducing emissions by cutting down on travel by 30% and plan to shift to an all-electric fleet by 2025."

It's the difference between "groceries" and "noodles, milk, and butter".

Whereas abstract language is vague and describes a more general idea without going into the details, concrete language describes a specific action or solution.

Concrete language assigns responsibility.

It's clear what action the business is taking and how it can be held to account.

It makes the issue of climate change more accessible to more people, more memorable, and makes solutions more tangible and actionable.

When to use abstract language

Now, this is not to say that it's never okay to use abstract language.

It shouldn’t be used to obscure or avoid responsibility or accountability or to pass the buck on concrete actions. (I'm looking at you, "offsetting initiatives".)

The trick is knowing when it's appropriate.

For example, when discussing complex scientific concepts or global or systemic issues, abstract language can help to simplify the concepts and make them more accessible to a broader audience.

Abstract language is also a better option when discussing the values, beliefs, and principles associated with climate change - because not everyone feels the same way about it and some people don’t believe it’s a thing.

In these instances, it's a good idea to balance concrete and abstract language to ensure that the issue is understood, the actions are clear, and that accountability is established.

So, how do you strike the balance?

• Start with concrete actions first and use specific examples, clear targets, and timelines.

• Then talk about your long-term goals in the context of the broader issue (i.e. the abstract stuff).

• if possible, through in a doughnut (what’s in it for them?).

— Tarryn ✌️

P.S. Did someone forward this to you? You can subscribe here, if you want.

P.P.S. Want to work with me? I help businesses to define their purpose, craft their content strategies, and tell the sustainability stories that make an impact and inspire change. Pop me a mail if that’s something you need help with.

This week's climate and sustainability news worth noting

🙌 The EU has updated a draft law to clamp down on crimes against the environment. It has introduced new definitions of environmental crimes to help protect biodiversity, with sanctions of up to 10 years imprisonment for the most serious offenders and fines of up to 10% of a company's average worldwide turnover in the three business years preceding the fine. The EU has also committed to sourcing 42.5% (up from a previous target of 32%) of its energy from renewable sources by 2030, with a potential top-up to 45%.

🥩 A leaked draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report published last week has shown that the meat industry successfully watered down and, in some cases, even deleted scientists' findings and recommendations on diet. Michael Thomas writes in Distilled that delegates from Brazil and Argentina successfully removed any mention of the negative impacts of meat on the environment. They also removed recommendations that people in wealthy countries reduce their meat consumption and shift their diets to include more plant-based foods. And delegates from Saudi Arabia made changes throughout the report to position carbon capture and storage as a climate solution on par with renewable energy. Tsk, tsk.

🐄 Meanwhile, a new investor report has found that the world's 40 largest meat and dairy companies are likely to lose almost $24 billion in pre-tax earnings by the end of the decade due to poor planning for climate-related risks.

🌱Australia has introduced the Nature Repair Market Bill that could see farmers, Indigenous rangers, and local councils being paid to protect nature. The Bill seeks to establish a market for biodiversity certificates that would be regulated by the Clean Energy Regulator and traded similar to Australian Carbon Credit Units. In what would be a world first, land managers could earn credits for projects such as planting native species, removing feral cats and weeds, or fencing livestock out of waterways.

🇻🇺The small island nation of Vanuatu has succeeded in getting the UN to adopt a resolution calling for the International Court of Justice to set out the obligations that states have under international law to fight climate change as well as the consequences they should face for inaction. The move was co-sponsored by more than 100 other countries and is expected to empower vulnerable nations in international climate negotiations.

🧑🏽‍⚖️ Citizens who say their human rights have been violated by climate change are suing the governments of more than 30 European countries in three separate cases before the European Court of Human Rights. The cases could result in orders for the governments involved to cut carbon dioxide emissions much faster than currently planned.

👩🏻‍🔬 Scientists have come up with a new way of sucking CO2 from the air, transforming it into bicarbonate of soda, and storing it in the sea, an approach they say is up to three times more effective than current CO2-removal methods.

And in business news:

🧪 A group of investors managing more than $4 trillion of assets has written to 13 of Europe’s biggest chemicals companies, calling on them to implement credible climate strategies and prove that they are cutting emissions rapidly. Such strategies, they say, will become a prerequisite for securing investment and that decarbonisation is not optional.

✅ The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) has released its final draft framework to enhance corporate approaches to disclosing nature-related data. The framework wants companies to disclose their impact on nature and biodiversity and integrate them with their carbon reporting by 2030.

Well, that's interesting

Conflict between humans and elephants is an urgent problem across Africa. As human populations grow, people are encroaching on formerly wild areas, including some game reserves and national parks. Elephants are getting compressed into smaller spaces, can take an entire year’s harvest overnight, and occasionally even kill people they encounter. This breeds fear, anger, and intolerance for the animals, eroding community support for their conservation. Sometimes farmers fight back, and elephants are killed.

Now, technology has come to save the day. And the elephants.

The BuzzBox taps into elephants’ innate fear of bees and scares them off by mimicking the sound of an active and angry hive. The solar-powered boxes are triggered when an elephant approaches by playing a 30-second clip of buzzing bees which causes the beasts to high-tail it out of there.

Developed by UK non-profit Wild Survivors, the BuzzBox costs just $100, is simple enough for local schoolchildren to build, and is helping humans and animals to live together in harmony.

Watch the BuzzBox in action:

One small thing you can do.

Because lots of little actions combined can add up to something remarkable.

End your love affair with Google; switch to Ecosia.

As a writer, I use search engines a LOT.

So I was shocked to learn that ONE Google search consumes 0.0003 kWh of energy and emits 0.2g of carbon.

Here I was, thinking that I was doing a good thing working from home, but with the amount of research I do, I'm inadvertently emitting a shitload of carbon 😒

And then I heard about Ecosia, which actually removes 0.5kg of CO2 from the air each time you use it, making it a carbon-negative search engine.

The not-for-profit B corp plants one tree for every 45 searches you perform – and it has already planted over 140 million trees.

And since it's powered by Bing, you still get high-quality results. Plus, it's a lot more private than Google.

It's quick, easy, and free to set up, no matter what browser you use.

Switch to Ecosia here.

I'll leave you on this happy note...

A guy called "Dazza" 3D-printed a hotel for a frog – who would become known on the internet as Froderick – not knowing that this little invention would become a thriving ecosystem for hundreds of "frods" and a momma and baby possum.

Follow Froderick's journey here:

https://www.instagram.com/unknowndazza/

Enjoyed this newsletter? Please tell your friends about it ✌️

Need a sustainability or green tech content strategist, writer, or editor? It’s me you’ve been looking for.