That’s what Margaret Atwood recommends.
I learned about that at this blog post by Daniel Bloom titled “The Everything Change Bagel”.
I agree with the reasons for this proposal. It is true: “Climate Change” sounds like you are talking about the weather. What’s the big deal if it gets a couple of degrees warmer? That happens every day.
In reality, climate change will radically change everything on an unprecedented scale. So a different term may be more fitting.
I used to call it “Global Meltdown” for a similar reason. I even have a category with that title on this blog.
The only problem with such changes in the terms is that everybody else is using “Climate Change”. Which packs actually already less punch than “Global Warming”. People who try to delay countermeasures are well aware of that fact.
Therefore I agree in principle with the reasons for Atwood’s proposal of changing the term. But even if “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” are not really adequate to describe the amount of misery ahead, these are the terms everyone else is using.
So I think we are stuck with them until there is an international effort to come up with a better recommendation. In that case, I would think that “Global Meltdown” is even better than “Everything Change”.
That is because “Change” is not necessarily a bad thing. Obama used this word as a central theme of his campaign. In contrast, “Meltdown” is. People think of the Fukushima disaster. No one likes meltdowns. Especially not on a global scale.