DOUBLETALK — TOO CLEVER BY HALF
Environmental Doublespeak — Greenwashed Language to
Watch Out For

In George Orwell's amazing (and scary) novel "1984," people used "newspeak" and "doublethink." It was soon after that the term "doublespeak" started being used to describe the words of politicians who were trying to sound like they were saying something without really having said anything tangible they could be pinned down on. More recently, doublespeak has been increasingly used as a clever way to cover up lies.

Here in the middle of the 2000's, there's a new brand of this twisty-turny language: Environmental Doublespeak. If you watch the news, you have no doubt already heard some of the phrases:

• "use common sense"
• "modernizing regulations" or "updating laws"
• "simplifying and streamlining regulations" or "eliminating red tape"
• "clarifying regulatory language"
• "improving the way we protect the environment"

On the surface, these concepts are hard to argue with. Who wouldn't be in favor of reforming laws that are so outdated that they have become useless? What right-minded environmentalist wouldn't want to improve the way we protect the environment?

“IT’S CODE LANGUAGE, .007”

The problem is that environmental-doublespeak phrases are usually code language designed to obscure the fact that the speaker really intends to weaken environmental protection. Here are some common statements you hear from the sham environmentalists:

• "We're taking another look at the science associated with the problem."
• "We plan to invest in more study of the problem."
• "We want to make decisions based on sound science."

Again, such statements seem reasonable enough; but in practical terms, one can usually substitute the following phrase with perfect accuracy: "We plan to do whatever we can, including funding more studies on topics that are already well understood scientifically, to delay any strengthening of regulations in this area."

THE DOUBLESPEAK OF “SOUND SCIENCE” AND “BALANCE”

The phrase "we need sound science" is used a lot these days to cast days to simultaneously cast doubt on scientific evidence that is already solid, make the speaker sound prudent, and make his opponents sound like reactionary Chicken Littles. But don't blame the phrase—the concept of sound science is a fine one; it's just been co-opted for use as cover by anti-environment politicians.

Environmental doublespeakers are also fond of stressing the need for "balance" when crafting environmental laws. Again, this is reasonable on the surface, but the devil is in the details. Today, the result desired by those preaching a need for "balance" is usually environmental regulation that is more acceptable to corporate polluters.

MISCELLANEOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOUBLESPEAK

There's another type of environmental doublespeak: statistical manipulation. Consider, for instance, the statement, "The environment has gotten much cleaner in the last 30 years." That is a fact, at least in developed nations, but the implication is that there is a constant positive trend and that things are just about to the point where they're "clean enough." But in some cases, most of the environmental progress of the last 30 years occurred early in the three-decade period. We should be asking about RECENT trends and actions—i.e. what have you done for me lately? Additionally, the environment is nowhere near clean enough: half of US residents live in counties with unhealthful air and 40% of our surface waterways are not safe for swimming or fishing (with nearly all states having issued health warnings about mercury contamination in locally caught fish).

There is also something that might be called "insult doublespeak." This type of environmental doublespeak is intended to not only assert the speaker's enthusiasm for making progress on environmental problems but also to cast doubt on the motives or mental capacity of anyone who would criticize or oppose their views:

• "Those opposed to this plan are guilty of 'old thinking'; we need 'new thinking' on environmental problems."
• "Criticism often comes from those who seek to protect the status quo."
• "We should regulate based on science, not emotion."

Euphemisms are another problem; for instance, program cuts at the US Park Service were at one point described as "service level adjustments."

The overall strategy of practitioners of environmental doublespeak is to soothe the public's concern about environmental problems while they act quietly to implement changes that please political patrons and weaken environmental protection. Here are a few additional phrases to beware of, either because they are meaningless without positive action to back them up or because they are code language designed to disguise true intent:

• "we're committed to the environment"
• "better ways to protect the environment"
• "reduce regulatory uncertainty"

WRAP-UP

This article is not meant to provide a definitive list of environmental doublespeak phrases. That would be impossible—the phrases themselves are relatively innocent; it's the duplicity behind their use that is the problem. Additionally, political spinmeisters are constantly coming up with new strategies for doublespeak. We simply urge a general attitude of suspicion towards language used to describe positions on the environment.

So, the next time you hear a politician talking about the environment say something like "We have different solutions, better solutions," you might want to say, "Could you be a little more specific, Senator Smogg?"

Publish date: 19-OCT-2004

Resources:

• Disinfopedia article on general doublespeak
• Union of Concerned Scientists' Sound Science Initiative

More articles and resources on....

• Politics of Environmental Issues
• Pollution
• Environmental News
• All subjects

Get Grinning Planet free via email

"He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument."

— Shakespeare, "Love's Labor's Lost"