What’s key, and you can incorporate data into this, is trying to build a narrative for people which is positive in terms of its future outlook. It’s: “This is the world we can build. We can address climate change alongside other issues. It’s not going to cost you a ton of money. It might save you money. We’ll have cleaner air. We’ll have more energy security.” Which is more appealing than “We’re all going to die from climate change.”
That certainly sounds more persuasive to me.
It’s a good article about how advocating for the non-climate benefits of climate solutions might get one further than using the climate argument again.
I like, but also chuckled at this passage.:
What is the appropriate response from the scientific community? To cede the political discussion to nonscientists?
What scientists are often not that good at is explaining to the layman what this actually means for them. You have temperature targets of 1.5 degrees or two degrees. We need to explain in clear language what that means for the average person.
What does a world at two degrees of warming look like?
That certainly sounds more persuasive to me.
It’s a good article about how advocating for the non-climate benefits of climate solutions might get one further than using the climate argument again.
I like, but also chuckled at this passage.: