[In August of 2017, I published this essay. Its inspiration came from an article courtesy of folks at The Guardian. What follows is that essay of mine—with a few small modifications. At the time that I first published this piece, I used footnotes. This time, however, I avoided footnotes entirely. Thus, I needed to make some minor editorial adjustments to the text of the essay.]
* * *
Allegedly, language is a trait which separates the human race from all other life forms on planet Earth. Not too long ago, the late Mark Twain remarked on the potential impact of human language: “The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter—it is the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” As such, Twain suggests that language is a medium which conveys meaning into the minds of human beings.
* * *
Recently, folks at The Guardian reported that managerial staff at the United States Department of Agriculture (or, USDA) asked its support personnel who work within the Natural Resources Conservation Service (or, NRCS) to consider using different words when referencing climate change. The NRCS, as folks at the USDA state, “provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve, maintain and improve our natural resources and environment” (i.e., folks at the NRCS work with farmers—be they small, medium-size, or large). In their Mission Statement, folks at the USDA affirm that the USDA provides “leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management.” Furthermore, in their Vision Statement, folks at the USDA declare that the USDA serves:
To expand economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production sustainability that better nourishes America while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve and conserve our Nation’s natural resources through restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy working lands.
Moreover, folks at the USDA assert, and then define, seven “Core Values”—where it seems that words even matter to USDA employees. The first is “Transparency”, which is defined as “[making] the Department’s management processes more open so that the public can learn how USDA supports Americans every day in every way”. The second is “Participation”, which is defined as “[providing] opportunities for USDA constituents to shape and improve services provided by the Department”. The third is “Collaboration”, which is defined as “[working] collaboratively at all governmental levels domestically and internationally on policy matters affecting a broad audience”. The fourth is “Accountability”, which is defined as “[ensuring] that the performance of all employees is measured against the achievement of the Department’s strategic goals”. The fifth is “Customer Focus”, which is defined as “[servicing] USDA’s constituents by delivering programs that address their diverse needs”. The sixth is “Professionalism”, which is defined as “[building] and maintaining a highly skilled, diverse, and compassionate workforce”. Finally, the seventh is “Results Orientation”, which is defined as “[measuring] performance and making management decisions to direct resources to where they are used most efficiently.”
* * *
The USDA works on behalf and at the behest of the president of the United States of America: Donald John Trump. And even he is no stranger to the inherent power of language. For instance, on 30 December 2015, when then-presidential candidate Donald John Trump stood behind a podium in the State of South Carolina to use words to describe why peace does not exist in Syria, he said the following: “I’m very highly educated. I know words, I have the best words, I have the—. But there’s no better word than stupid.”
Well said, Mr. President, indeed.
* * *
According to folks at The Guardian, however, USDA managerial staff has recommended several language substitutions. For example, rather than use “climate change” try “weather extremes”. Tired of “climate change adaptation”? Then how about “resilience to weather extremes/intense weather events: drought, heavy rain, spring ponding”? Renounce “reduce greenhouse gases” and defer to “build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency”. And if possible, snub “sequester carbon” and embrace “build soil organic matter”.
* * *
In his essay “Politics and the English Language”, the late George Orwell argued that “All issues are political, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia.” Over the years, even before he became the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald John Trump, using words, shared his thoughts on climate change, ranging from how it is nothing more than a Chinese invention “to make US manufacturing non-competitive” to “a very, very expensive form of tax”. In fact, this same man once used words to describe how he apparently believes that “the human body [is] like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only [depletes]”.
A sobering thought—to be sure—and one the human race must now contemplate. After all, if President Trump were correct in his estimation, then humanity would need to show concern for this seventy-one-year-old man who frequently drains his energy vessel for hours on end across numerous links—notwithstanding his many campaign pledges to avoid playing such a taxing thing as golf.
* * *
However, President Trump is not the sole authority on issues like climate change. On their website, folks at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (or, NASA) state the following: “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.” In addition, the folks at NASA, in concert with the folks at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (or, NOAA), report that “Earth’s 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880. . . . Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001.”
And so, here is a case where not one—but two—American federal governmental agencies which also work on behalf and at the behest of President Trump use words to convey meaning into the minds of human beings.
* * *
Nevertheless, with so many people in American governmental ranks putting a volley of words into play, who should one believe the most when it concerns something like climate change? The words of, say, (give or take) 97% of the world’s scientists who submit their detailed studies to peer-reviewed journals, or the words of a man who sometimes posts his random thoughts on Twitter with words, long after his biotic battery has eclipsed its zenith?
Truth be told, President Trump serves on behalf of and at the behest of the American people. He is merely an American citizen whose current job title is temporary. Therefore, whatever climate change word-swap suggestions that the USDA managerial staff has recently encouraged its NRCS support personnel to use ultimately rests in the lap of the USDA’s boss: President Trump (apart from any plausible deniability, of course).
Climate change means that the climate—the biosphere on planet Earth—is changing. And today, roughly 100% of peer-reviewed scientific work continues to reach the same conclusion using nothing more than words (including the language of mathematics): Harmful changes are present throughout the planetary biosphere because, as folks at both NASA and NOAA contend, they are are “extremely likely due to human activities”. Not to put too fine a point on it, they are anthropogenic in nature: overpopulation; deforestation; overfishing; pollution; et cetera and ad infinitum. In short: What folks at The Guardian report is that current USDA federal employees—who in the end work on behalf of and at the behest of the American people—are promoting an idea in the workplace to substitute words in official American federal governmental documents to soften the meaningful impact which a phrase like climate change puts into the minds of humanity.
* * *
The USDA’s Mission Statement contends that its employees use “the best available science”. As such, logic dictates that almost 100% of the world’s peer-reviewed scientific journals would be an excellent place for USDA managerial staff to start when crafting American taxpayer-funded policy because recent human history demonstrates that when it concerns an issue, like climate change, some scientific work has been done to benefit those who sought profit from products which caused harm to life itself on planet Earth. In other words: The likelihood exists that rampant fraud is in our midst, for if nothing else holds value to the human race, then it is that a healthy biosphere remains a constant variable—not only for the life forms of today but also for their descendants—no matter whether they understand the striking complexity of the myriad of human languages and their intrinsic power to convey meaning through the use of the human word.