In short, we aren’t on track to an apocalyptic extinction, and the new head is concerned that rhetoric that we are is making people apathetic and paralyzes them from making beneficial actions.
He makes it clear too that this doesn’t mean things are perfectly fine. The world is becoming and will be more dangerous with respect to climate. We’re going to still have serious problems to deal with. The problems just aren’t insurmountable and extinction level.
That’s the thing I don’t get. How to come to such a conclusion?
If you ever have been on a sinking ship, you know how suddenly even the worst enemies will cooperate willingly quite well in face of time pressure and a life threat. Some might even be willing to sacrifice themselves when in such a situation, even a few minutes gained can make a huge difference. But aswell if the situation seems hopeless.
It’s totally atypical for most humans to just accept fate and relax in any life threatening situation. Humans tend to die fighting/ defending.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2018.1532872
climate change unstoppable != scary life threatening consequences
Those are two entirely different narratives.
(And I didn’t get past the paywall.)
Homie I’m trying to explain what you’re obviously not understanding about this, and you keep responding with arguments about how you’re correct to not understand or something?
Guy said “don’t be hyperbolic about the 1.5c goal because if people feel hopeless they are less likely to act.” We shouldn’t be acting like the scary life threatening consequences of climate change are unstoppable. That is one narrative, you silly goof.
Then he’s wrong. But it’s more likely you misread the study since that’s not the conclusion.
My guy I can only imagine how hard it must be to go through life completely illiterate.
So you are saying
is the same thing as
Those are fundamentially different things and you just pulled some study you think is fitting to OPs article. But allright… I’m the one who’s illiterate.
they want a slow boil, keeps the panic down and diminishes the odds there will be a ‘bastards up against the wall’ moment for the ones responsible.
i can’t see how that could prevent that. Quite the opposite, if half-assed efforts (without “state of emergency”) lead to higher impact, people will get angrier than with lower impact, simply because more will have to struggle harder.
we’re going to have the angry people mad that their children will grow up in a hellscape, and the deniers still sticking their heads in the sand saying petroleum is fine. gonna be real fun when these two groups meet up.