How do experts feel about the many mainstream media articles which breezily inform the world that we can limit temperature rise to 1.5C if human-caused emissions drop 7.6% each year from now to 2030?
Shouldn't journalists explain why this doesn't reflect reality?
@richardabetts
Shouldn't journalists explain why this doesn't reflect reality?
@richardabetts
Scientists are aware that 7.6% isn't enough.
Journalists must make clear that extraordinary radical changes are now required for a 15% (or even 7.6%) reduction in emissions.
Journalists must make clear that extraordinary radical changes are now required for a 15% (or even 7.6%) reduction in emissions.
Journalists should be highlighting the reality of feedbacks, aerosol loss and risk (even in theory, what kind of chances do 7.6% cuts give us?).
** The context is that climate scientists are clear that we're heading rapidly to 1.8C - 3.2C or more. **
** The context is that climate scientists are clear that we're heading rapidly to 1.8C - 3.2C or more. **
And have governments, or state/corporate media, or businesses, or schools, or universities explained the net negative CO2 emissions issue?
How are people expected to respond appropriately to ecological-climate catastrophe when they're not being informed?
How are people expected to respond appropriately to ecological-climate catastrophe when they're not being informed?
