Katharine, you are a bright light of optimism in what often seems a dismal prospect ... but I have to agree with commenter Stephen Schiff. And it appears that worldwide fossil fuel industries are making huge investments in still more carbon fuels, banking (perhaps cynically) on unproven carbon capture technologies to allow them to keep spewing out CO2, methane, and all the rest. If those industries seemed to start investing in renewables, I might be more optimistic. But it’s pretty clear they intend to go big in the same direction that’s gotten us into the current state of the climate.
As a climate scientist with decades of experience, I appreciate your interest in this vital issue. However, I'd like to clarify misconception I see in both of your comments. You both appear to believe I'm unaware of the gravity of the situation when in fact, I'm deeply familiar with it -- not only details of the IPCC reports, but the primary literature from which they are derived.
What's crucial, and perhaps what's not yet widely understood, is that my decades of experience in this field have led me to explore beyond the traditional narratives of doom-filled numbers. I began this journey about 15 years ago, by which time it was already evident that merely citing IPCC reports, which have been around since 1990, isn't enough to drive significant change.
The content of this newsletter reflects the culmination of decades of thought and research, incorporating insights from a diverse range of social scientists. These experts have spent years and decades diving deeply into understanding what truly motivates people to embrace change.
I recognize and value your commitment to climate action. In light of this, I encourage you to view my recent talk or read my book, "Saving Us." These provide an "under the hood" look at the reasons why doom-laden statistics have consistently fallen short in inspiring widespread action. We're at a critical juncture where effective communication is key, and we cannot afford to lose momentum on ineffective strategies. That's why I'm so strongly committed to moving forward with the most impactful approaches -- and I would love for you both to join me!
I realize that this Substack is about emphasizing the positive, but it is also necessary to be accurate about the status of efforts to reach climate goals. The mosr recent IPCC assessment indicates rhat the CO2 level in 2030 will be +9% relative to that of 2020, whereas to meet the 1.5C Paris goal it needs to be -40%. So, 1 09÷ 0.60 = 1.82, i.e. we are 82% ABOVE target at the current rate of emissions growth. That translates into not only missing the +1,5C Paris goal, but also missing the +2C level. We are on the path to a climate catastrophe.
It would be helpful if you, as a spokesperson for climate action would urge your audience to demand immediate action by Congress and the President.
Your realization is incorrect. This newsletter features good news and not so good news every week (except for once).
Interestingly, however, I find that those who think it's more important to share only the bad news perceive even 99% bad news, 1% good news to be 100% good. They skip right over the 'not so good news' section as if it doesn't exist.
And then at the end, I always have something constructive people can do. It has certainly included contacting your elected representatives before, and it will again! For example, see this recent issue: https://www.talkingclimate.ca/p/regional-climate-action-in-the-us
A correction to my comment: As reported in the Wissen (science) section of the 21.11.23 edition of the Süddeutsche Zeitung, we are on track for 3C heating. Twice the Paris goal. But to put a positive spin on it, we won't see things getting really bad during my lifetime. But on the other hand my actuarial life expectancy is about ten years.
I truly appreciate and am encouraged by your concern and involvement in climate discussions. I wish everyone understood the magnitude of the risks as clearly as you do.
However, as I mentioned in my other comment, I am a climate scientist with years of study in this field. Not only that, but I am one of the scientists who calculate this information that you are sharing. As a result, your comments run the risk of coming across as mansplaining, an approach that is not conducive to constructive conversation.
If you are open to learning from someone with 30 years of daily experience in the field, I encourage you to review the comments and resources I've previously shared.
This is not just about sharing perspectives, but about deepening your understanding the complexities of how to effectively catalyze action. We share a passion for a better world, and one of the biggest lessons I've learned in those 30 years is that effective action is grounded in well-informed strategies.
Katharine, you are a bright light of optimism in what often seems a dismal prospect ... but I have to agree with commenter Stephen Schiff. And it appears that worldwide fossil fuel industries are making huge investments in still more carbon fuels, banking (perhaps cynically) on unproven carbon capture technologies to allow them to keep spewing out CO2, methane, and all the rest. If those industries seemed to start investing in renewables, I might be more optimistic. But it’s pretty clear they intend to go big in the same direction that’s gotten us into the current state of the climate.
As a climate scientist with decades of experience, I appreciate your interest in this vital issue. However, I'd like to clarify misconception I see in both of your comments. You both appear to believe I'm unaware of the gravity of the situation when in fact, I'm deeply familiar with it -- not only details of the IPCC reports, but the primary literature from which they are derived.
What's crucial, and perhaps what's not yet widely understood, is that my decades of experience in this field have led me to explore beyond the traditional narratives of doom-filled numbers. I began this journey about 15 years ago, by which time it was already evident that merely citing IPCC reports, which have been around since 1990, isn't enough to drive significant change.
The content of this newsletter reflects the culmination of decades of thought and research, incorporating insights from a diverse range of social scientists. These experts have spent years and decades diving deeply into understanding what truly motivates people to embrace change.
I recognize and value your commitment to climate action. In light of this, I encourage you to view my recent talk or read my book, "Saving Us." These provide an "under the hood" look at the reasons why doom-laden statistics have consistently fallen short in inspiring widespread action. We're at a critical juncture where effective communication is key, and we cannot afford to lose momentum on ineffective strategies. That's why I'm so strongly committed to moving forward with the most impactful approaches -- and I would love for you both to join me!
https://imgw.univie.ac.at/news-events/more-items/keynote-by-katharine-hayhoe-from-worried-to-activated/
I realize that this Substack is about emphasizing the positive, but it is also necessary to be accurate about the status of efforts to reach climate goals. The mosr recent IPCC assessment indicates rhat the CO2 level in 2030 will be +9% relative to that of 2020, whereas to meet the 1.5C Paris goal it needs to be -40%. So, 1 09÷ 0.60 = 1.82, i.e. we are 82% ABOVE target at the current rate of emissions growth. That translates into not only missing the +1,5C Paris goal, but also missing the +2C level. We are on the path to a climate catastrophe.
It would be helpful if you, as a spokesperson for climate action would urge your audience to demand immediate action by Congress and the President.
Your realization is incorrect. This newsletter features good news and not so good news every week (except for once).
Interestingly, however, I find that those who think it's more important to share only the bad news perceive even 99% bad news, 1% good news to be 100% good. They skip right over the 'not so good news' section as if it doesn't exist.
I typically strive for a balance of 50-50, because that is what the social science shows is most effective. If you're interested in the rationale and the science behind this approach, I have a number of talks on the topic, including this recent one: https://imgw.univie.ac.at/news-events/more-items/keynote-by-katharine-hayhoe-from-worried-to-activated/
And then at the end, I always have something constructive people can do. It has certainly included contacting your elected representatives before, and it will again! For example, see this recent issue: https://www.talkingclimate.ca/p/regional-climate-action-in-the-us
A correction to my comment: As reported in the Wissen (science) section of the 21.11.23 edition of the Süddeutsche Zeitung, we are on track for 3C heating. Twice the Paris goal. But to put a positive spin on it, we won't see things getting really bad during my lifetime. But on the other hand my actuarial life expectancy is about ten years.
I truly appreciate and am encouraged by your concern and involvement in climate discussions. I wish everyone understood the magnitude of the risks as clearly as you do.
However, as I mentioned in my other comment, I am a climate scientist with years of study in this field. Not only that, but I am one of the scientists who calculate this information that you are sharing. As a result, your comments run the risk of coming across as mansplaining, an approach that is not conducive to constructive conversation.
If you are open to learning from someone with 30 years of daily experience in the field, I encourage you to review the comments and resources I've previously shared.
This is not just about sharing perspectives, but about deepening your understanding the complexities of how to effectively catalyze action. We share a passion for a better world, and one of the biggest lessons I've learned in those 30 years is that effective action is grounded in well-informed strategies.