Discourse on the climate crisis is intrinsically dependent on and intertwined with the concept of translation. The term is used in distinct but interrelated senses in the relevant literature. The first, reflected in the term “knowledge translation”, refers to the dissemination of research findings to stakeholders and the general population. The second, closely related sense of translation concerns the rendering of scientific knowledge into effective action rather than merely disseminating it. These two interrelated meanings account for the bulk of references to translation in climate crisis discourse. Finally, reference is also made in climate crisis discourse to the more familiar but less acknowledged understanding of translation as rendering research papers, children’s literature addressing eco-anxiety, and other written material into different languages, as well as interpreting in international climate summits.
In the case of knowledge translation, the emphasis is on ‘translating’ the effects of the climate crisis into everyday language in order to facilitate climate science communication to non-experts. Knowledge translation is used in medicine to describe the combined efforts of many agents “translating knowledge from ‘bench to bedside’, or from basic research into clinical practice” (Ødemark et al., 2021, p. 153). In climate crisis discourse, the use of the term is sporadic and less regulated than in medicine, but the assumed flow of translation is similarly unidirectional. Information and findings by climate scientists are expected to be disseminated to a wide range of users, with varying levels of background in or understanding of climate science. It is recognized that this diversity of end users requires meticulous audience design that is appropriate for each occasion and outlet. And yet, such design is rarely sought or achieved. Translating climate emergency research into concrete information that has immediate relevance to different sectors of society is seen as crucial for achieving action, though such translations inevitably risk being anthropocentric in terms of tailoring scientific information to specific human needs or expectations.
Despite the traditional emphasis on the need to achieve such knowledge transfer, scientists and policy makers are increasingly recognizing that they also have to listen to and learn from the diverse experiences of local communities. Global actions that need to be taken in order to slow down, stop or reverse global warming, which is contributing to the climate crisis, are expected to be uniform across the world, for example in terms of ending fossil fuel dependency, eliminating meat and dairy from diets, and switching to alternative, public means of transport. Yet locality is key in the experience of the climate crisis—whether it be floods, droughts, wildfires, heatwaves, or ice storms—as well as in the measures that need to be taken to address it. The same set of global ecological data means different things in different regions, i.e., the data need to be interpreted differently according to geological and sociological variants. The translation of scientific information therefore needs to take into account the specificities of the target audience in terms of time and place.
The second, more metaphorical use of translation in climate crisis discourse closely follows from the anxieties around knowledge translation. It mainly revolves around the idea of converting abstract information obtained through knowledge translation into tangible and viable action, but translation in this sense is also used to mean turning theory (or plans, evidence, laws, feelings) into practice, projects, and behavioural change. Here, instead of a bridge between knowledge producers and knowledge users, translation emerges as alchemy, a process of turning the abstract, analytical, and scientific into the concrete, practical, and socio-political, thus expediting the desired change. Depending on the viewpoint of the narrator, this type of translation is understood as the task of governments, politicians, policy makers, scientists, or lay people. In other words, the translator is designated as someone other than the narrator, their exact identification perpetually deferred. There is widespread agreement among researchers and activists that this type of translation faces many challenges, ranging from short-sighted governmental policies to individual apathy.
The perceived disjuncture that needs to be transversed—between scientific information and its tangible impact, between cutting-edge research and its widespread application in law, government policies and individual lifestyle choices—has its roots in another perceived chasm: that between nature and society. If nature and society are seen as two different entities, the role of the natural sciences becomes one of “‘translat[ing]’ the facts about nature to society” and the scientific expert can be cast as “some sort of interpreter on behalf of nature” (Naustdalslid, 2011, p. 245), tasked with demonstrating the extent of damage inflicted on nature by society and minimizing this damage by offering scientific solutions. Critiquing this approach to the climate crisis, Naustdalslid rightly argues that “nature and society should be seen not only as interdependent, but also as two interlinked systems where the boundaries between them are becoming blurred” (2011, p. 246).
Interlingual translation undoubtedly plays a critical role in both the formation and the spread of climate crisis discourse, and is particularly important given that climate crisis action emphasizes inclusivity and the global circulation of information. There is particular emphasis on the way Indigenous communities around the world are experiencing the climate emergency, and on how they can contribute to the debate. However, with little or no interpreting provision, international delegates in climate summits often find the debates difficult to make sense of and contribute to, given that they have to follow complex legal and scientific discussions in their third or fourth languages. I argue that recognizing the significance of local cultural perspectives, considering the ways in which such perspectives are reflected in and shaped by language, and reflecting on the ramifications of interlingual translation of climate crisis discourse may challenge mainstream expectations of knowledge translation in the field and may inspire climate scientists to identify other, more effective ways of turning their findings into action.
