In a recent New York Times article, environmental journalist Elisabeth Rosenthal asked, “Where did global warming go?” It is the question of a confused and frustrated person who was hopeful about climate change mitigation in 2008 but has lately become more pessimistic. In many ways, her feelings echo mine.

Both politicians and the public seem less concerned with climate change than they were three years ago, and governmental action seems unlikely in the near future. While this can partially be attributed to the powerful fossil-fuel lobby and the economic recession, I think a large part of the problem stems from the way we talk about climate change. Climate scientist and Princeton professor Robert Socolow addressed this in an essay published last month.

Socolow’s main claim to fame in the climate world is a 2004 paper that argued that, contrary to popular belief at the time, it was possible to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions for the next 50 years using technologies we already had. Though no technology was sufficient on its own, we could achieve this goal if we combined seven technologies. (Disclaimer: My thesis advisor, Stephen Pacala, coauthored this paper.)

Many climate scientists and activists greeted this paper with excitement. Here was a precise, doable plan for the next 50 years. Surely the government and the public would take heed. In his recent essay, Socolow mused on why his paper failed to galvanize action. Mainly he sees this as a failure of communication, and I think there is truth to what he says. The current rhetoric is both divisive and alienating. Many skeptics refer to climate advocates (both scientists and activists) as global warming alarmists. Activists, on the other hand, dismiss skeptics as climate deniers and idiots. Certainly, this is not a productive way to have a conversation.

The thing is, both camps are correct. There is uncertainty in the science and as a result, climate models predict a variety of possible future scenarios. These scenarios include both extremes — situations where carbon emissions do not have much environmental impact (for a while, that is) and situations where the world spirals out of control with a five-meter sea level rise by 2100, massive drought and flooding, human conflict over resources and ultimately massive human mortality. More likely is a middle scenario, with significant harmful effects that are not of such apocalyptic magnitudes. The problem is, it is hard to predict exactly where the threshold levels are. We know that increased carbon dioxide levels will have certain effects, we just don’t know when exactly those effects will materialize.

Scientists and activists seem reticent to mention uncertainty or that the more stable scenario is possible (though I will add unlikely). They fear that doing so will lead to inaction. But, rather than spurring action, the “alarmist” approach has opened the door for skeptics to poke holes in the story and to accuse climate scientists of lying or distorting the data. A different approach, as proposed by Socolow, would be to present climate change as a risk, rather than as a doomsday prophecy lurking around the corner. In doing so, scientists and activists would acknowledge that the scenario painted by skeptics is plausible (in the short term — at some point, our emissions will catch up with us), thus at least somewhat neutralizing that argument. Climate scientists and activists would seem reasonable and trustworthy rather than extremist. And if we told Americans that there is a small chance that greenhouse gas emissions might have little effect over the next 100 years, an equally small chance that these emissions could be catastrophic, and a big chance that these emissions would cause very severe (but not catastrophic) problems, I think most would rather play it safe. We could get past this stalemate of “he said, she said.”

But the issues addressed by Socolow are not the only problems with climate change communication. Part of the problem stems from how we talk about the environment more generally. Climate change and environmentalist rhetoric often pits humans against or outside of the environment. We must “save” the planet. Though dramatic expressions may rouse some, I believe that this strategy is actually alienating to many. No one wants to save the planet — or even cute polar bears — if it is at the expense of oneself or one’s family. No one wants to save the planet by destroying the economy. Skeptics often warn that our focus on climate change distracts attention and resources from alleviating world poverty.

But the truth is, we are part of the system and our rhetoric and policy should both reflect that. Alarmist scenarios are so alarming because of how they affect people and societies, not merely because of how they impact animals or plants. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the problems of the developing world such as drought, hunger, poverty and conflict will only get worse. As one of my EEB professors explains, the world is not made up of ecosystems, it is made up of social-ecological systems in which we affect the environment and the environment affects us. It is not us or the environment. It is us and the environment. By saving the planet, we are saving ourselves.