The hottest Emissions scenarios Substack posts right now

Scientific findings about climate are often simplified into dramatic one-liners, so media and politicians can end up misrepresenting what the underlying research actually says.
Observed data show heatwaves and heavy rainfall have increased with warming, but there is no strong evidence that hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, hail, or lightning have become more frequent.
Practical politics and public welfare shape energy policy: people resist costly rapid transitions, emissions intensity has been falling for decades, and the most extreme 'business as usual' emissions scenarios were unrealistic and have been largely abandoned.

Bad or fake datasets and low-quality models have been used in climate research and major assessments. Those errors need prompt correction and retraction to restore scientific trust.
Major climate assessments and agencies are highly politicized and swing with each administration, which undermines credibility. Depoliticizing these institutions would help rebuild public trust.
Financial “climate risk” products and the continued reliance on extreme, implausible emissions scenarios are distorting research and policy. Climate science should use more realistic scenarios and clearer links between risks and evidence.

The critical debate in climate science is about whether past scenarios were flawed, not just forecasts of the future; a key 2017 study showed many high-emission scenarios relied on unrealistic assumptions about coal and fossil fuel growth.
Despite evidence that extreme scenarios like RCP8.5 are unlikely, influential authors reframed them as ‘worst cases,’ so thousands of studies and policy discussions still use outdated scenarios and risk drawing misleading conclusions.
If the scenarios were fundamentally flawed from the start, then climate research, scenario development, and policy choices need major changes, and the fight over this history will shape who leads future climate science and policy.

Recent projections of climate change are showing less severe outcomes than before. This means the future might not be as bad as some had predicted.
Scientists have recently agreed that the world will probably warm less than previously thought. This is a positive development and could change how we approach climate policies.
Regulations aimed at reducing emissions, like those from the EPA, might not have a big impact on global emissions. More effective methods to tackle climate change could be needed.

The EPA used research to claim that greenhouse gas emissions are lower than expected, but they didn't explain why this is the case. This leaves out important factors that need to be considered.
High-end emissions scenarios, which expected more pollution, were based on unrealistic technology and economic assumptions. Reality has shown that these extreme predictions were unlikely to happen.
The way the EPA is changing emission standards misinterprets the research. It's like saying we don't need safety measures because a big accident didn't happen, ignoring that the measures are what kept it from happening in the first place.

Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

The global carbon budget is shrinking, meaning we have less time to limit warming to 1.5C or 2C.
To meet climate goals, global emissions must reach zero by specific years, which may be challenging.
The carbon budget is a dynamic target that requires rapid reductions in emissions to avoid overshooting temperature targets.