The present study, authored by scientists from different backgrounds, makes the eloquent case for such a reflection, pause, and reassessment. The publication is recommended to any reader concerned about our oceans' future.
The plastic pollution crisis is a significant and growing threat to the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gas emissions from the plastic lifecycle threaten the ability of the global community to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C.
Climate change mitigation scenarios are important instruments for developing pathways towards a climate-friendly world. This short study shows that neither the use of CDR technologies is as indispensable as shown in the scenarios, nor is an overshoot unavoidable.
Limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial is feasible. This publication is a civil society response to the challenge of limiting global warming to 1.5°C while also paving the way for climate justice.
Oil Giant Royal Dutch Shell has known about climate risks of fossil fuel production for six decades. As early as the 1980s Shell knew about their accountability for 4 % of global carbon emissions. Still, while pragmatically protecting their own offshore oil rigs from the dangers of sea level rise, Shell massively promoted climate denial and climate obstruction as the CIEL report shows.
Oil industry actors had early knowledge of climate risks and important opportunities to act on those risks, but repeatedly failed to do so. Those failures give raise to potential legal responsibilities under an array of legal theories.
For the past decade, a small but growing group of governments and scientists, the majority from the most powerful and most climate-polluting countries in the world, has been pushing for political consideration of geoengineering, the deliberate large-scale technological manipulation of the climate.
The prospect of controlling global temperatures raises serious questions of power and justice: Who gets to control the Earth’s thermostat and adjust the climate for their own interests? Who will make the decision to deploy if such drastic measures are considered technically feasible, and whose interests will be left out?