Great article. I believe the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels has meant nothing to most people. If anything, I wonder if it may not have lulled many into a false sense of security simply because it seems such an insignificant and therefore achievable number. But it hit home to me when I saw it put into context: In the period 1850-1900 --let's call this the historical baseline-- temperature highs of more than 30 ºC were recorded in many parts of the world. In 2022, with only 1.3 °C of global warming relative to the historical baseline, record temperatures of 40 °C or more were felt in many countries. Imagine, then, what a projected increase of 2°C (if not more) in global average temperature could mean in terms of maximums in the near future? And even this context is not complete (or sufficiently alarming), because I haven't mentioned anything about rates of heating, which "currently threaten to exceed 0.3°C/decade for the coming 20 years, double the rate of the past 50 years"... (Source: https://braveneweurope.com/jem-bendell-the-biggest-mistakes-in-climate-communications-part-1-looking-back-at-the-incomparably-average).
This is so true and I feel exactly the same about the 1.5°C issue — it sounds pathetic, honestly. Who notices a 1.5 degree change? Hardly anyone. Those record temperatures are much more compelling.
People will read good content from people that they trust and are inspired by. For example, I just read your whole newsletter—and it wasn’t 300 words. 😂
Context is such a great point. It’s about telling the stories (the ups and downs).
I wrote a report for a major consulting company, and they fought me at every point where I tried to provide more context and specifics. Without context, greenwashing.
Great article. I believe the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels has meant nothing to most people. If anything, I wonder if it may not have lulled many into a false sense of security simply because it seems such an insignificant and therefore achievable number. But it hit home to me when I saw it put into context: In the period 1850-1900 --let's call this the historical baseline-- temperature highs of more than 30 ºC were recorded in many parts of the world. In 2022, with only 1.3 °C of global warming relative to the historical baseline, record temperatures of 40 °C or more were felt in many countries. Imagine, then, what a projected increase of 2°C (if not more) in global average temperature could mean in terms of maximums in the near future? And even this context is not complete (or sufficiently alarming), because I haven't mentioned anything about rates of heating, which "currently threaten to exceed 0.3°C/decade for the coming 20 years, double the rate of the past 50 years"... (Source: https://braveneweurope.com/jem-bendell-the-biggest-mistakes-in-climate-communications-part-1-looking-back-at-the-incomparably-average).
This is so true and I feel exactly the same about the 1.5°C issue — it sounds pathetic, honestly. Who notices a 1.5 degree change? Hardly anyone. Those record temperatures are much more compelling.
People will read good content from people that they trust and are inspired by. For example, I just read your whole newsletter—and it wasn’t 300 words. 😂
Context is such a great point. It’s about telling the stories (the ups and downs).
I wrote a report for a major consulting company, and they fought me at every point where I tried to provide more context and specifics. Without context, greenwashing.
Oh man, yeah the red flags start to go up as soon as they push back on specifics!! 🙈