Opposition to data centres is all the rage these days. I find it quite perplexing. Data centres are, by their nature, very compact structures. If they are huge, they are yet minnows to other Leviathans of modern development (e.g., solar farms). Perhaps, I thought, their owners and developers need to think of a more soothing name, an appealing name, rather than the rather dystopian-future “data centre.”

Well, a moment’s reflection reminded me that they already have such euphemisms, such as “the cloud.” It’s something that we all make use of, whether we are aware of it or not. Data centres are probably easier to oppose than “cloud servers.” Or “Tiktok libraries.” The opponents of data centres still want the features of data centres, just without the physical structure near them.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, how words matter, and how the adoption of certain names and adjectives over others can swing public opinion. I have thought of a few in the climate realm, listed below.

[As a failed/wannabe writer, I am disgusted by the corruption of our language. I have only modest confidence in my skills, and that makes me better than otherwise, because it makes me try harder. I would not be capable of writing for clicks, owing to the way I feel compelled to caveat and explain everything. I could never, for example, write a ‘listicle’ about the top ten most abused words in climate. That being the case, here is a ‘listicle’ without ranks or superlatives.]

Green: Used in expressions such as “green energy,” “green jobs,” and many others. The first sense must mean “more destructive than the conventional,” and the second, “subsidised.”

Clean: “Clean energy” is supposed to mean free of “carbon,” the word “carbon” being a dysphemism for “carbon dioxide,” and energy releasing it therefore is put firmly in the category of “dirty.” [I am not going to talk about dysphemisms deployed by the climate set today.] “Clean” therefore means not producing carbon dioxide, which is in any case not dirty, being essential to life on Earth. No doubt it takes advantage of a sort of folk memory of the type of stuff that used to come out of coal plants, when we had them. “Clean” these days means “the pollution is somewhere else,” because of the materials-intensive nature of such machinery.

Wind farm: Well, it does not “farm” wind, as a pig farm farms pigs. It is a collection of vast machines built to collect a very dilute resource, as a barnacle straining particles from the current; it collects the kinetic energy of molecules of air, with a mass of c. 1 kg per cubic metre. A “wind farm” is “clean,” so naturally it caused pollution far away; its effects on bird life and other parts of nature means that it deserves far harsher names. “Bird mincers” and others have been tried, but have not stuck. “Silent Spring array,” perhaps.

Solar farm: Not farming sunbeams, but collecting them, in analogy to wind farms. “Photovoltaic arrays covering vast areas of prime farmland” does not quite have the same ring to it. “Inland lake of silicon wafers.”

Renewable: Part of an endless cycle, but in fact, a more pertinent description is “weather-dependent.”

Net Zero: It is supposed to represent the UK coming into balance with atmospheric CO₂; it is, however a joke, once the euphemistic label is peeled off. It is like swearing that you eat healthily at home, but discounting the three nights a week you get a takeaway. Sceptics have tried various terms to undermine the name, “nut zero,” “stupid net zero,” but none have stuck. Somehow the Net Zero brand seems to have become toxic anyway. “National suicide” is what it is.

Tackle the climate crisis: Deployed, for example, to justify the development of giant batteries to be hooked up to the UK grid. “This development will help tackle the climate crisis.” What is meant by this euphemism is, “we are hoping for pinch points when the cost of electricity goes to the stratosphere, so we can sell our stored juice to the grid for a fortune.”

Bio-energy: it sounds “renewable”, but it has a number of drawbacks. “Scorched-earth energy,” might be a better alternative, referencing the clear-cut forests that feed beasts like Drax. “Hunger crops,” could be a good way to point out the displacement of food crops by energy crops such as Miscanthus, used to produce bio-ethanol. Interestingly, the proportion of bio-ethanol in petrol does not seem to have reduced the duty we pay on it, does it?

Transition: This is one of my most despised words among those deployed to grease our path to national destruction. It makes the changes we are experiencing seem logical, progressive, inevitable. Once we begin to transition, there is no route back. We are here; we are transitioning, and when we finish transitioning, we’ll be over there. “Over there,” in this sense, means the way things were two centuries ago. “The transition” therefore means “the destruction.” As it is being done by choice, well, it makes it so much worse. Why destroy what we have, so we can raise a flag bearing the word “VIRTUE” over the ruins?

Zero-emission: No carbon dioxide comes out of the tail pipe. Indeed, it doesn’t have a tail pipe. It does, however cause emissions of fine particles from tyres and brakes, as we know. It also produces emissions elsewhere, when it is being constructed for us. Quite a lot, in fact. So instead of “Zero Emission Vehicles,” we could call them “Distant Emission Vehicles.” Or “Someone Else’s Problem Emission Vehicles.” Or “Toxic dust sprayers.” Do they produce more dust than cars with engines? Is it toxic? Who cares? This is about the grotesque deployment of language to pump up a flaccid case.

Home-grown: “Clean home-grown energy that we control,” or whatever it was that lemon said. It means, in fact, “built by China.” So, it’s “Chinese energy.” And when they speak of the energy as being “ours,” what they mean is, “owned by a foreign dictatorship.” “Materials-intensive Chinese-built energy owned by dictators.” That’s better.

We – sceptics I mean – lost the battle over the language long ago. Probably when “climate change” supplanted “global warming” as the name of the apocalypse. Well, we don’t have to be happy about it. Is there any value in cynicism? Probably not, but there must be value in recognising the cynicism in those who want to control us for their own ends.