The French government on Monday unveiled its long-awaited third national climate adaptation plan, outlining 52 measures aimed at preparing the country for temperature rises that could reach 4C by the…
1.5c was a goal to allow breathing room to stay under 2c. If we stabilised at around 1.5c we’d probably be able to respond to the changes but it would still be shitty eg continually rising sea level destroying infrastructure stronger rain events, stronger droughts, more powerful cyclones etc
The 1.5c level will likely be crossed using the rolling average method they talk of, in a couple years ie 2028 ish?
At around 2C we’ll have crossed to many tipping points and will have lost control, 4c being inevitable and perhaps even 6c, which would likely be an extinction level event for humanity (the seas become hypoxic and plankton die off, no more Oxygen production etc
I just feel like the 1.5C target has done more harm than good, it allowed policymakers to mislead the public on climate goals and continue to kick them down the road. I feel like “There is no safe level of climate change, we must deescalate now” would have been a better approach.
But still it’s a method of quantifying climate change and I suppose we’d have more denialism if there wasn’t clear data out there.
1.5c was a goal to allow breathing room to stay under 2c. If we stabilised at around 1.5c we’d probably be able to respond to the changes but it would still be shitty eg continually rising sea level destroying infrastructure stronger rain events, stronger droughts, more powerful cyclones etc
The 1.5c level will likely be crossed using the rolling average method they talk of, in a couple years ie 2028 ish?
At around 2C we’ll have crossed to many tipping points and will have lost control, 4c being inevitable and perhaps even 6c, which would likely be an extinction level event for humanity (the seas become hypoxic and plankton die off, no more Oxygen production etc
Well said, it’s a very grim situation.
I just feel like the 1.5C target has done more harm than good, it allowed policymakers to mislead the public on climate goals and continue to kick them down the road. I feel like “There is no safe level of climate change, we must deescalate now” would have been a better approach.
But still it’s a method of quantifying climate change and I suppose we’d have more denialism if there wasn’t clear data out there.