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 (

@franz There is more on the 'simply innovate' assumption as well, as the solution is not 'technological', since we already have the technology to keep on our current quality of life and technologies which would 'nullify or revert' emissions (CCS and like) are nowhere to be ready (last two parts of the IPCC AR6) and are right now only serving as actual greenwashing for companies and states to keep emitting hoping for a 'techno-fix' which has more of magic wishful thinking than science in it

@franz If we miss this point, we also fail to get that no energy source will ever be enough to fill infinite ambitions on a finite planet (, and that's the first source mentioned here is still valid today: we should acknowledge and act upon the "limits to growth".

@franz This means we have to change the economic model and today it mainly remains a political issue, as pathways to do so are set, the only people actively opposing them are those who have more to gain to just maintain the status quo; as simple and dramatic is the lack of action and abuse of politicians' responsibilities over those people who, due to democratic processes, they should care for -but who they're currently endangering to defend their economic interests as just a tiny fraction.

@franz Therefore yes, by acknowledging that such systemic changes are nowadays driven by top-down processes, we do believe individual people as citizens have tremendous potential to enable positive changes: however...

@franz not in the impact they could ever have by reducing their carbon emissions directly, but by deploying bottom-up strategies to reach those social tipping points where the current sanctioned status quo of few powerful individuals can't be preserved against the majority of people's interest, and actions such as mass civil disobedience are historically serving the purpose of creating such political pressure and are nowadays needed for necessary changes to happen (

@franz Finally, we can just say if you also believe in the importance of individual actions, then please join us ! 🌱


@ScientistRebellion so in summary, we don't disagree on the problem, but we have vastly different views on how-to achieve these goals.

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 1

@franz actually, not even that, as we reiterate we support a variety of strategy and think deploying them all is the best to achieve these goals: you don't think 'blaming companies' works, we have proofs blaming individuals doesn't as well, let's move forward with new ways then 🖖

Sign in to participate in the conversation
PantherX Community

PantherX Community