When we think about climate change, we often think about rising temperatures, extreme weather or environmental damage. But climate change can also affect people’s health — and not everyone is affected in the same way.
A study by Vanessa Marcella, Adjunct Professor of English for Academic and Specific Purposes at the University of Calabria, and Jean M. Jimenez, Associate Professor of English Language, Translation and Linguistics at the University of Calabria, looks at how these connections have been communicated over time. Their study examines ten Greenpeace International annual reports published between 2014 and 2024 to understand how the language used to discuss climate change, health and social equity has evolved.
What can language tell us about climate change?
The way we talk about an issue can influence how people understand it. Words and narratives can draw attention to particular aspects of a problem, highlight who is affected and suggest who has responsibility for addressing it. Marcella and Jimenez analyse the language used across a decade of Greenpeace annual reports. They look at which words and ideas appear most frequently, which concepts are associated with one another, how different groups are represented and how responsibility for climate-related problems and solutions is described. By comparing reports from different years, the researchers can trace changes in the way climate change is presented rather than looking at a single moment in time.
From environmental hazards to climate justice
The study’s preliminary findings suggest a shift in the way health is discussed in Greenpeace’s annual reports. Earlier reports tend to present health mainly in connection with environmental hazards. More recent reports increasingly connect climate-related health impacts with climate justice, human rights and structural inequality. This means that the discussion is not only about whether climate change can harm people’s health, but also about who experiences the greatest risks and why. Since 2020, the researchers identify a stronger emphasis on the unequal health impacts of climate change on marginalised communities. Their analysis also points to the emergence of language around hope, participation and empowerment.
Contact
Why are some communities more affected than others?
Climate change does not affect every person or community in the same way. Factors such as social and economic circumstances can influence people’s exposure to environmental risks and their ability to respond to them. The language used to describe these differences matters. When climate change is presented through the lens of justice, for example, attention moves beyond the environmental event itself and towards the people affected by it. This shift can change the way the public understands climate change: from a problem concerning the planet as a whole to one that also involves health, inequality, rights and the distribution of risks and responsibilities.
What happened between 2014 and 2024?
The ten-year period covered by the study coincides with several major developments in the global climate and health debate, including the Paris Agreement, the COVID-19 pandemic and the growing visibility of climate justice movements. These developments provide important context for understanding changes in environmental communication. As public discussions evolved, organisations communicating about climate change also had to address new connections between environmental protection, health, human rights and social inequality. By comparing reports across the decade, the study makes these changes visible through the language itself.
Why does climate communication matter?
The study is not simply about which words appear in Greenpeace reports. It asks a broader question about how climate change is presented to the public. If climate change is communicated primarily as an environmental problem, people may focus on ecosystems, emissions and natural hazards. If it is also framed as a health and justice issue, other questions become more visible: Who is vulnerable? Who is affected most? What responsibilities do governments, organisations and communities have? Understanding these different ways of communicating climate change can therefore help us understand how environmental issues become connected to wider debates about public health and social equity.
Looking at climate change through a wider lens
By tracing changes in Greenpeace’s communication over ten years, Marcella and Jimenez’s study shows how the language surrounding climate change can evolve alongside changing social and political concerns. Their analysis contributes to a broader understanding of climate communication and of the connections between environment, health and equity. The study itself remains the academic work of Marcella and Jimenez. The EUPeace context provided a setting for discussion and exchange around these themes. Ultimately, the research invites a simple but important question: when we talk about climate change, are we also talking about people’s health, rights and chances of living safely and equally?
