
Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months - perfunctory
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736
======
cagenut
Keep in mind whenever you see these "we have X <timeframe>" quotes, they're
usually an attempt to fit a complicated series of graphs into a short English
sentence/headline, so they will _always_ be wildly reductive. If your knee
jerk reaction is to take the contrarian/devils-advocate counter point because
you assume it can't be that reductive or simple, you are failing at media
studies in the 21 century 101.

The context for the quote is, roughly speaking, the graph in the bottom left
corner of this infographic put out by the IPCC in their Special Report on
1.5C:

[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/SPM1...](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/SPM1_figure-
final-e1541758557589-947x1024.png)

The most important thing to understand about that chart is that it is
considered a baked in assumption that we will do either the blue line if we're
smart (mostly just climate refugees), and the grey line if we're dumb (loooots
of climate refugees and probably a bunch of famines and wars).

Every person, every family, every town, city, village, state, and country,
every company, every non-profit, every board of every thing, needs to be
putting their "how we get to zero by 20X0" plan in writing _NOW_.

~~~
yk
But the grey line assumes that we as a species act like responsible adults.
There is something darkly comical about the IPCC emission scenarios.

------
n4kana
I'm listening to Walter Isaacson's biography of Ben Franklin, and climate
change reminds me of a more daunting version of the challenge faced by the
Constitutional Convention of 1787. One Franklin quote, in particular, stands
out in my mind: "Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no
better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best."

This voice of benevolent uncertainty is strangely silent in the conversation
on climate change. Every talking head "knows" the answer and speaks
prophetically to their followers who already agree. I believe it is this
preaching to the choir (by both sides) the keeps progress on hold.

It's worth noting that Franklin was not typical among the delegates at the
convention. He was a minority voice of humorous and pragmatic compromise that
helped to cool tempers and foster agreement.

If we want to see action on climate change promptly, we need both sides to
cede a bit of certainty and humor their opponents. A climate change skeptic
can get on board with solar and EVs (see Ford prototype pulling a train).
Likewise, a climate advocate can get on board with geoengineering as an
essential tool that caters to who we are rather than who we should be.

Carbon awareness has backfired, becoming so widely conversational that both
sides have advocates with strong opinions that don't know a thing. I'm too
damn naive to figure out what the middle path is, but it's there, and I
believe we'll find it. However, we may find it more suitable to kill off our
ideological enemies in war, being fought openly or prosecuted through a
justice system coopted by a radical majority.

Sadly, I see each side fantasizing about absolute power. Wouldn't it be great
to cut down and bury the deniers in shallow graves? Wouldn't it be great to
see those tree-huggers hang from their beloved trees?

I don't want this. It horrifies me.

No matter how you look at it, humanity will need to perform a daring escape.
Why not solve our problems with the same ingenuity that got us here in the
first place? It sure as hell won't be my ingenuity, but with the right public
conversations, we may be able to cultivate it sooner than later.

------
xbmcuser
In my opinion we are at the planning stage for a battle of a war we have
already lost.

------
celeritascelery
I feel like unless they have extremely high confidence in this number, this
statement will do more harm then good. If 18 months comes and goes and it
isn’t the end of the world, it will only feed climate change deniers with
“see! I told you they don’t know what they are talking about.”

~~~
samwillis
That’s not what the article says, if you read it you will see it’s suggesting
the _decisions_ made in the next 18 months are crucial for saving the planet.

------
malvosenior
dupe:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20519357](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20519357)

~~~
lucb1e
Anyone know why that submission was flagged to death?

~~~
malvosenior
It's clickbait. This is a quote from Prince Charles with a hard deadline of 18
months to save the planet.

~~~
keanzu
Ah malvosenior. You were the author of the funniest comment on that thread!
"This is a statement by Prince Charles of all people, might as well have
Taylor Swift chime in while we're at it" but the comeback from hirundo "That's
not fair. As the Prince of Whales it's his duty to protect the environment of
marine mammals" was a close second.

------
woogiewonka
Let's face it, we are fucked.

~~~
dang
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

------
Mountain_Skies
True or not, even if all nations of the world decided today to make honest
attempts to reduce emissions, it wouldn't happen within 18 months. So if the
timeline is that short, what's the point of doing anything. We're doomed. If
it's not truly that short, it'll be another prediction that fails to come true
and gives further ammunition to those who don't believe climate change is
happening or believe the danger to be overblown. Either way, such
pronouncements don't seem to be helpful in achieving the ultimate goal of
stopping or controlling climate change.

~~~
wbeckler
Please read the article. That's not what it's saying at all.

