For political movements, "either/or" & "5 minutes to midnight" strategies might work fine, but there will be new carbon budgets and new net-zero years in the future
@Peters_Glen and I wrote about this in @NatureGeosci
rdcu.be/RAld & rdcu.be/0TiG #scipol
@Peters_Glen and I wrote about this in @NatureGeosci
rdcu.be/RAld & rdcu.be/0TiG #scipol
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1229796673586712576
@Peters_Glen @NatureGeosci There are two problems with this strategy, a more political one and one for researchers at #scipol interface.
Constant "5 minutes to midnight" framing feeds politicians' impression that time will never run out, and that there will always be new deadlines rdcu.be/0TiG
Constant "5 minutes to midnight" framing feeds politicians' impression that time will never run out, and that there will always be new deadlines rdcu.be/0TiG
@Peters_Glen @NatureGeosci Constant "either/or" framing gives researchers at science/policy interface problematic incentives to keep "5 minutes to midnight" storyline alive, by shifting assumptions, e.g. on max decarbonisation rates & net negative emissions nature.com/news/policy-cl… & onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.100
@Peters_Glen @NatureGeosci The result so far: a succession of failed and then reset #climate deadlines.
Such deadlines/targets might still lead to more (but not sufficient) #climate action. But the downside of an "either/or" climate discourse is a significant degree of polarization
Such deadlines/targets might still lead to more (but not sufficient) #climate action. But the downside of an "either/or" climate discourse is a significant degree of polarization
https://twitter.com/oliver_geden/status/1154349427689234432
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
