I often run across commentary in the media about what we should be doing about the climate crisis. What often strikes me is the complete lack of urgency in the conversation. The whole vibe is “we have time.”

When you hear any commentary on climate change, mitigation and adaptation you must ask this fundamental question:

Are these comments in line with the latest available peer-reviewed science?

Nothing has changed in the latest consensus which is:

The report provides new estimates of the chances of crossing the global warming level of 1.5°C in the next decades, and finds that unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5°C or even 2°C will be beyond reach.

Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying

Immediate, rapid, large-scale reductions is the only language that anyone who wants to offer opinion on this should be using as their starting point, if that opinion is to be considered credible.

In other words “is this course of action we are about to take consistent with immediate, rapid, large-scale emission reductions?”

The “we have time, lack of urgency” vide is exactly as Gutterres said recently: “We are on a highway to hell and our foot is on the accelerator.”