Using 'biosphere degradation' instead of global change?
The struggle to capture human impacts on the environment
As mentioned in a previous post, the term ‘global change’ is slightly problematic because of mainly three reasons: 1) it can and does refer to both human-caused changes but also to changes that occur over geological timescales and the term is thus insufficiently specific; 2) it is not a term that is known in the general public, and even among scientists it has not a clear meaning in terms of just environmental change (as compared to social change); and 3) the component ‘change’ is very neutral and thus insufficiently descriptive of the crisis unfolding.
In the most accepted definition of global change in the sense that I am referring to here, there are three components: the changes are human-caused, the changes are global in scope, and the changes affect biota. It is rare to find this definition, and instead many times you find the term defined by enumeration of the factors: climate change, plus nitrogen deposition, elevated CO2, invasive species, chemical pollution, etc.
In situations like this you have two choices. Try to make the term that exists more specific (which means changing the definition), or introducing a new term. Changing an existing definition is always an uphill battle, even though it is an acceptable solution in principle. Perhaps we need a new term?
One could use human-caused global environmental change. This makes everything clear, but is a mouthful; however, when there is a potential for misunderstanding, I have used it. It unfortunately doesn’t have a great acronym (HCGEC)…and there isn’t a way to simplify it without losing the specificity.
Might it be worth using ‘biosphere degradation’. The word degradation signals a negative influence, implying human agency. Degradation is descriptive while avoiding the drama of ‘crisis’. ‘Biosphere’ makes clear that we are talking about effects on biota and ecosystems and that these effects are planetary in scope. This captures an essential component o the definition of HCGEC, namely that it needs to be a factor that affects biota.
Biosphere degradation has been used before in a paper on planetary health. Of course using a relatively new term doesn’t solve point 2) at all, i.e. that the public doesn’t know it. But perhaps this term is more evocative than global change and this will help?
Human-caused biosphere change, or anthropogenic biosphere change (ABC) might also be options; but they use the rather neutral term change (as in climate change).
I am really torn on this one, because personally I like ‘global change’, since its meaning within my immediate scientific bubble is completely clear to me and those around me; it just regularly leads to issues whenever you leave that bubble.
What do you think?
Yes! It better captures the anthropogenic impact and encompasses everything—not just the climate in 'climate change', but also the decline in biodiversity, among other factors. I also think that when a term becomes popular, its meaning becomes understandable to a broader public, much like how 'Anthropocene' started as an academic niche term but is now quite commonplace in broader societal discourse.
This is such an important topic. I've puzzled over it as soon as I saw the term "global change." I agree is it hopelessly vague and means almost nothing to the average person. This is also part of a larger issue concerning scientific language and public understanding. I think of scientific language as a kind of shop talk, a way of speaking that makes sense to those in the science "shop." It is often valueless and vague, but to scientists that serves a purpose. For instance, not all change happening on the globe, such as global regreening, is degradation.
The problem is what happens when the "shop" talk is translated for the general public. Great care is needed here and is rarely given. Most climate journalists seem completely unaware that climate change is a subset of global change. In fact, I suspect they see it the other way around. Even the term "climate change" is misunderstood as not all climate change is a result of global warming. Sometimes it is primarily due to land change.
One strategy is to aim for specificity. Most people talking about climate change really mean global warming due to the global diffusion of ghg's. But drought, fire, flood cycles are strongly related to damaged hydrology. I think you're moving in an important direction, and though I don't have any magic terms to solve the matter, I think the questions you are asking are the place to start. Thanks!