The only way that has any feasibility of happening is if we're honest about the severity of the consequences we're headed towards. Using soft language around climate change gives politicians and corporations who are dragging their feet plausible deniability. Pointing out that their hesitancy is putting millions and millions of lives at risk is necessary to push them to action.

If you went back to the 90's, the outcomes we're talking about as realistic today were seen as fear mongering, now it's just the cost of doing business. And that slow creep will continue if we don't address it.

Can I get you to acknowledge that we're looking at an area currently occupied by 20-ish percent of the human population becoming next to uninhabitable without constant and energy intensive airconditioning? To me that fits any definition of catastrophic, regardless of where you live on the planet.

We can't keep on moving the goalpost on climate action, not so many years ago the discourse was that we had to limit the increase to 1.5degrees to avoid the worst effects.

So use better descriptors.

"Destabilizing to society"

"Cataclysmic"

"Endangering the survival of humanity"

"Extinction level threat"

"A danger to all life on Earth"

There's plenty of room to increase the severity of the language used. The fact that you're opposed to describing the projected effects of climate change as catastrophic is mind boggling to me.

What're you talking about? The current trajectory isn't acceptable, we failed to tackle climate change, and the outcomes *will* be catastrophic. Displacement (and inevitably, death) of tens of millions *is* catastrophic.

The fact that the situation feasibly could be worse doesn't make the situation better.

You wanna be clear in your communication? How about this ranking:

1. Catastrophic climate change.
2. Societal collapse.
3. Threat of extinction.

We're at 1 at the moment. Downplaying the threat of climate change (which, in my opinion, you are doing right now) is incredibly dangerous. In a lot of peoples mind if it's not catastrophic then there's no rush (look at any climate conference). Not pressing the grave importance of immediate climate action is how we end up with even worse outcomes.

Semantics. The Middle East and India are in for deadly heatwaves and wet bulb events respectively, those will displace tens of millions of people at a minimum, that's a catastrophe in my eyes.

The current "momentum" still has us headed for catastrophic climate change.

Yep, those 50 years of sabotaging progress to sell more oil is sure working out for us.