The view that PR and Ad firms shouldn’t promote fossil fuel interests is science-based. A 1.5 degree threshold demands rapid decarbonization and a phase out of fossil fuels. So those of us urging for divestment are advocating for 1.5 degrees, rather than 2.8.
We can and will explore all the important nuances to this conversation in the coming months, but a big part of this comes down to math. Are we for 1.5 or 2.8 degrees?
To put the degree difference into perspective, at 1.5 degrees, 70 to 90% of coral reefs are likely to die off worldwide. At 2 degrees, 99% are lost,” per @IPCC.
Thus, if we delay even a year or two more, we will pass a point of no return.
npr.org/2021/11/08/105…
Thus, if we delay even a year or two more, we will pass a point of no return.
npr.org/2021/11/08/105…
Naturally, the call for 1.5 sparks this response from OPEC following #Cop26:
"The narrative that the energy transition is from oil and other fossil fuels to renewables is misleading and potentially dangerous to a world that will continue to be thirsty for all energy sources."
"The narrative that the energy transition is from oil and other fossil fuels to renewables is misleading and potentially dangerous to a world that will continue to be thirsty for all energy sources."
The oil industry will paint truth as a “dangerous and misleading narrative,” and their dangerous and misleading narrative as truth. That is their game - careening us toward 2+ degrees.
PR and Ad execs must think more carefully about the answer to: Why help them win?
PR and Ad execs must think more carefully about the answer to: Why help them win?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
