Climate change is all over the media, and a war is being waged between those that believe in its existence, and those that do not believe the science. For scientists and journalists that write around the topic of the environment and climate the dilemma is, do they write about the worst case scenario. If they do, they may lose the interest of their audience or cause them to disengage with the topic because it is simply too scary. The worst case scenario, which runs hand in hand with the “business as usual” scenario, in which the world does nothing to combat climate change, could also bring a strong reaction with climate deniers, who have a loud voice and use the power of the internet to spread “alternative” unsubstantiated information, and create doubt. On the other hand, giving a watered down version of the truth, could make the public complacent, and complacency has already lead to the slow reaction to climate change; a slow reaction which has left the climate needing urgent solutions to attempt to overcome the danger posed to our generation and those to come, by climate change.
Photo from the New York Magazine
In the case of David Wallace-Wells of the New York Mag, he decided that his research, which outlined the worst case scenario, was worth publishing in its entirety without sugar coating. It is a thought provoking and worrying look at the next 80 years on planet earth. (And for those of you that have questions, this version also has annotations answering the many queries that were offered after it was first published)
In the extensive article 'The Uninhabitable Earth', he covers the following sub headings:
I- Doomsday
II- Heat Death
III- The end of food
IV- Climate Plagues
V- Unbreathable Air
VI- Permanent Economic Collapse
VII- Poisoned Oceans
VIII- The Great Filter
To read the article 'The Uninhabitable Earth' from the New York Magazine CLICK HERE
#Climeworks #parisaccord #environment #climatechange #trump #Switzerland #innovation #Klimaziel #CO2Capture #CarbonLaw #CleanFuelNow