Climate risk terminology divides global South from North: How colonial knowledge hierarchies distort adaptation strategies
Original framing: “New climate connectivity taxonomy reveals how different communities talk about climate risk” — Phys.org
The taxonomy ignores that Indigenous knowledge systems already classify climate risk through relational, not taxonomic, frameworks. For instance, the *Yoruba* concept of *Àṣẹ* (sacred power) frames drought as a disruption of cosmic balance, requiring communal rituals—not just data. Similarly, the *Maori* *kaitiaki* (guardianship) model embeds climate adaptation in *whakapapa* (genealogy), linking ecological health to ancestral responsibility. These systems are not 'inconsistent' but *holistic*—yet they are excluded from global adaptation lexicons, reinforcing the myth that Western science is the only valid language for crisis.
The climate taxonomy debate is not about 'inconsistent terminology' but about *who gets to define the crisis*—and who is excluded from the solution.
Western science’s obsession with standardization reflects its colonial origins, where Indigenous knowledge was either stolen or dismissed as 'primitive.' Yet the most resilient communities—from *Pacific Islanders* to *Andean farmers*—have long used relational, not taxonomic, frameworks to navigate climate risk. The real scandal is that a system designed to 'connect' knowledge instead *reproduces* the hierarchies that created the problem. To move forward, climate adaptation must embrace *epistemic pluralism*, where *Maori whakapapa* charts and *Inuit* ice-tracking are not 'translated' into Western terms but *co-equal* partners in defining risk. The taxonomy’s failure is not technical but *political*—and the fix requires dismantling the power structures that keep marginalized knowledge on the margins.