The 1.5°C climate goal will be breached within 10 years or so. Leading climate scientists overwhelmingly believe there is no way back.

‼️ If you’re an academic and this frightens you, sign our letter to experts working on climate:

The public needs to hear from trusted experts that they are not only being failed but also deceived. Promises of ‘net zero by 2050’ will not avert catastrophe.

How can governments be held to account if citizens don’t know?

While the public does not know, world-leading climate scientists most certainly do.

96% of surveyed IPCC authors believe we will far exceed 1.5°C of warming.

The IPCC’s most optimistic scenario for staying below 1.5°C involves vast amounts of carbon being removed from the atmosphere to drag temperatures back down.

None of these technologies work at scale today. It is a gamble of epic proportions.

By gambling on sci-fi tech or quietly hoping for a miracle, experts are not levelling with the public.

Citizens are left undefended in the face of ongoing efforts by governments and the fossil fuel industry to resist rapid decarbonisation.

It is not enough to repeatedly say ‘every fraction of a degree matters’ or we need ‘more political will’.

Experts can no longer obscure the failure to meet a global goal with speculation about how that failure can be reversed.

@ScientistRebellion as far as I'm aware, politicians make up only a tiny fraction of earth's population. Shouldn't it be the consumer, that's changing habits?

Is it realistic to force companies into compliance, rather than developing viable alternatives, that consumers prefer, for price, health or other reason?


Oh, that triggers me. 😉


Politicians (especially members of national parliaments, governments and other mighty institutions) belong to a tiny fraction of people with enormous power in comparison to billions of people with very, very little power (power to change society). Comsumers should do something, clearly. But they can only change within certain boundaries which are set by... a tiny fraction of people with power. These have by far most responsibility.


@Voka @ScientistRebellion so you're saying, the people that buy goods; drive car's; fly on holidays - the "consumer" has less impact on the environment, than the politician? It's certainly an interesting thought. Any stats to back this up?

@franz @Voka Thanks for bringing your contributions to the discussion, although we get why this topic may be triggering and we can't but agree with Trotifant's comments, we also value other opinions and indeed believe individual behaviours play an important role in order to change the situation.

@franz @Voka Just, not the way outlined till now and still being the dominant narrative on the topic, as that definitely has several flaws pointed out by scientific studies, as will follow. Mainly, it's about shifting the attention on the individual consumers, so to allow large companies and states to go on with their polluting affairs undisturbed.

@franz @Voka This narrative has proven, historically and scientifically (please wait next comments for reference), to be an efficient way to prevent necessary changes and is therefore one of the 'blaming practices' which should be dropped if we are serious about saving ourselves in a situation of crisis.

@franz @Voka Going to the root causes, first we should acknowledge the unrealistic ambition of the 'economic growth' imperative, which mathematically and practically clashes with the finite nature of reality ( ) -the point never was of one individuals changing habits, those only adapt to the current social models as that seems to be one of the greatest but also most dangerous -as we see right now- ability of humans.

@franz @Voka Instead we need to change the economic system as a whole and consumption models in a systemic way, through a reduction which will have impacts of single citizens only if we continue delaying action by assigning the wrong responsibilities (

@franz @Voka Ultimately, he blame on individuals is something proven to be an advertising strategy by those polluting companies throughout the century and still going on now -as we can see by how tight this narrative is often reproduced in debates ( ).

@franz @Voka In fact we can only believe otherwise if we assume politicians and companies throughout time always operated for the good of people -which is definitely historically not the case and still goes on like this as the practical outcome of every and each Conference of Parties fails the otherwise feasible goals outlined by science in order to avert the worst of a crisis which is already happening (


@ScientistRebellion @Voka on one hand you say that politicians have failed, and conferences had no impact - yet on the other hand you say, we have to change the whole system, because consumers "only adapt to the current social models".

So again, isn't it up to the individual to make a change OR for us to innovate, so the transition happens naturally?

· · Web · 0 · 0 · 0
Sign in to participate in the conversation
PantherX Community

PantherX Community