4 ms·

More good news from the most recent climate scenarios

• Proven 4y ago
  [dead]
• Comevius 4y ago
  There are a few things wrong here. - 2-3 °C by 2100 is not good, because it's not stable. It's still the same runaway climate change. - The models of the environment underlying the IPCC scenarios are necessarily conservative, the criteria is high for them, but this also means that they don't account for many potential carbon-cycle feedbacks, because we don't know enough about them. This risk is not considered by any of the scenarios. - Because the scenarios are mostly based on human activity, but that's not well-understood either. Decision makers intentionally growing CO2 is called highly unlikely, our priority however is energy and food security. Climate change can increase short-term thinking that way too. Our ability for collective action can suffer further as well. The fossil-fuel projects under development put us on a path to unstable climate, which here is called a plausible scenario, but what about the rest of the planned and unplanned projects. Watering risks down with clever accounting might help policymakers, but it will also make policies inefficient.