2050 Nightmare

A policy paper from Breakthrough - National Centre for Climate Restoration in Australia paints a worst-case scenario of "total civilisational collapse" to motivate immediate action.

[T]he world is currently completely unprepared to envisage, and even less deal with, the consequences of catastrophic climate change.

[D]ramatic action is required this decade if the "hothouse Earth" scenario is to be avoided. To reduce this risk and protect human civilisation, a massive global mobilisation of resources is needed in the coming decade to build a zero-emissions industrial system and set in train the restoration of a safe climate. This would be akin in scale to the World War II emergency mobilisation.

Update (June 11):  Dave Lindorff reacts to the report.

The frightening report got major play on the major networks like CBS, ABC and CNN, and in USA Today, but it was basically a one-shot deal.

When our corporate media ignore the biggest story in the history of humankind, or give it only passing attention for a day and then move on to talk about [von Clownstick's] latest lie about nobody protesting his visit to London or J. Lo’s latest wardrobe malfunction, it’s not called denial. It’s called normal behavior or "professional journalism."

Update (June 30):  Matthew Rozsa considers whether "apocalyptic" warnings are overblown.

[I]t is important not to overstate matters, or to make concrete predictions that could be disproven and thereby harm the larger political case. At the same time, it is important to remember that, just as human fallibility is what got us into the mess of man-made climate change, so too will humans be fallible in attempting to fix the problem. Those who have made hyperbolic statements in the past should be more careful in their language going forward, but they should not be vilified so long as their intentions were intellectually honest.

Update (July 7):  Kelsey Piper argues "there are differences between catastrophe and extinction".

Beneath the disagreement over climate risks is a disagreement over worldviews. From one perspective, quibbling over whether climate change will kill millions or billions is a silly waste of time when, in either case, we urgently need to act. But from another perspective, the difference is deeply significant; for example, it changes whether potential solutions that carry significant risks, like some forms of solar geoengineering, are warranted.

It may be hard to get it right on what is the most realistic assessment.

Another broad disagreement is whether alarmism makes our prospects of tackling climate change better or worse. As some people see it, we’re not doing nearly enough to fight climate change, so we’d better focus in on the worst-case scenarios in case that will be what it takes to finally spur people to action. Others, though, worry that alarmism, far from motivating people, leads to paralysis — too much despair about the future to even bother working on it.

Collapse doesn't necessarily imply extinction and Jem Bendell claims his stark message hasn't been demotivating.