Editor’s pick.
Saved in:
| Title: | Editor’s pick. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Flint, David (AUTHOR), Harding, Geoff Harding (AUTHOR), Mellish, Richard (AUTHOR), Clason, Maureen (AUTHOR), Napier, Ian (AUTHOR), Edge, Sam (AUTHOR), Whiteley, Andrew (AUTHOR), Ford, John (AUTHOR), Cundall, Peter (AUTHOR), Rose, Mary (AUTHOR), Tunnicliff, Steve (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | New Scientist. 08/16/2025, Vol. 267 Issue 3556, p27-27. 1p. |
| Subjects: | Global warming, Climate change, Carbon dioxide mitigation, Climate change mitigation, Extreme weather |
| Abstract: | The main focus of the article is the debate surrounding climate targets in light of global warming. One contributor argues that the target should be set at 1°C to effectively mitigate climate damage and reduce the likelihood of extreme weather, while others express skepticism about achieving even 1.5°C, suggesting that higher limits may lead to complacency in decarbonization efforts. The discussion reflects a broader concern about the consequences of climate change and the need for urgent action to prevent catastrophic outcomes. [Extracted from the article] |
| Copyright of New Scientist is the property of New Scientist Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The main focus of the article is the debate surrounding climate targets in light of global warming. One contributor argues that the target should be set at 1°C to effectively mitigate climate damage and reduce the likelihood of extreme weather, while others express skepticism about achieving even 1.5°C, suggesting that higher limits may lead to complacency in decarbonization efforts. The discussion reflects a broader concern about the consequences of climate change and the need for urgent action to prevent catastrophic outcomes. [Extracted from the article] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 02624079 |
