Nope.
For more than 30 years the science has been crystal clear. [
There are scientific certainties about climate change and humanity's part in it.] How dare you continue to look away, and come here saying that you're doing enough when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.
You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.
The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees (Celsius) and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.
['Science' says that if we do this, this is the result. One way of quantifying the 'urgency' she speaks of.]
Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist. [
She expresses an opinion that it's not fair that her generation has to ride electric scooters, so I can drive my sportscar. This was not discovered with a scientific fairometer.]
So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us – we who have to live with the consequences. [
Greta's opinion is that that first result does not do enough.]
To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.
['Science' says that if we do a different thing, this is the different result.]
How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just "business as usual" and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than eight and a half years.
There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable and you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is. [
Greta's comment is a little ambiguous, but I think it's fair to say that she doesn't think the leaders will present a plan adhering to either scientific scenario.]
You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.
---
Science does not prescribe either of those two particular scenarios she mentions. Or to advocate on behalf of one rather than another. Nor does it even prescribe 1.5 degrees as a goal to work toward. Science has produced many different climate scenarios based on everything from 'business as usual' to 'confiscating personal cars'. Science doesn't prescribe any of them. Greta is expressing her opinion that it is shameful that, largely speaking, the world has adopted a plan awfully close to 'business as usual'.
I guess the best I can do is say you are entitled to your beliefs but not entitled to force them upon me or anyone else no matter how right you may believe you are.
