Propagandists have long understood the power of words, context, and framing to achieve political objectives. If executed with disciplined regularity, subtle semantic shifts can shape public opinion such that what was once considered common knowledge can quickly become dangerous Oldspeak. Given the trillions of taxpayer funds being earmarked for the so-called green energy transition, the motivation to control the climate narrative is exceptionally high. We see this in the evolution of the term “global warming” to “climate change” to “climate crisis,” each new moniker bringing with it more scientific flexibility than the last.
Hysterics aside, we have recently noticed a subtle but determined effort to execute another semantic shift that lays bare the raw and ugly core of the Malthusian climate agenda. For decades, we were told that carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels were dooming the planet and that we needed to slow and then eventually eliminate the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Now, with industry on the cusp of validating carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies at commercial scale—an advance that would theoretically allow humanity to benefit from the life-nourishing energy fossil fuels provide while minimizing global emissions of CO2—environmentalists are throwing everything they have at stopping such developments in their tracks. As part of this coordinated effort, the word “emissions” is being purposely de-emphasized in Newspeak, replaced instead with “burning.”
