Andy Reisinger
@andyreisinger.bsky.social
Climate science and policy. Also the occasional photo and random thoughts. Currently serving as Commissioner at He Pou A Rangi, New Zealand Climate Change Commission; former IPCC vice-chair WGIII. Usual disclaimers...
Reposted by Andy Reisinger
The question is, given that we have an electorate that selected Trump yet again, can we in fact do better? If the answer is no, the future looks pretty bleak.
I'd like to see more effort on "How can we lead the people where we need to go" vs "What approach is inadequate enough to sell?"
2/3
I'd like to see more effort on "How can we lead the people where we need to go" vs "What approach is inadequate enough to sell?"
2/3
December 25, 2025 at 8:07 PM
The question is, given that we have an electorate that selected Trump yet again, can we in fact do better? If the answer is no, the future looks pretty bleak.
I'd like to see more effort on "How can we lead the people where we need to go" vs "What approach is inadequate enough to sell?"
2/3
I'd like to see more effort on "How can we lead the people where we need to go" vs "What approach is inadequate enough to sell?"
2/3
Reposted by Andy Reisinger
This isn't a debate about policy design or differing paths to the same goal
One is a plan to allow more emissions (and therefore, more harm / death), and one is a plan to *at least try* to reduce that harm.
The 'debate' is about whether we should let fossil fuels kill people, or try to stop that
One is a plan to allow more emissions (and therefore, more harm / death), and one is a plan to *at least try* to reduce that harm.
The 'debate' is about whether we should let fossil fuels kill people, or try to stop that
December 21, 2025 at 7:34 PM
This isn't a debate about policy design or differing paths to the same goal
One is a plan to allow more emissions (and therefore, more harm / death), and one is a plan to *at least try* to reduce that harm.
The 'debate' is about whether we should let fossil fuels kill people, or try to stop that
One is a plan to allow more emissions (and therefore, more harm / death), and one is a plan to *at least try* to reduce that harm.
The 'debate' is about whether we should let fossil fuels kill people, or try to stop that
Reposted by Andy Reisinger
To be clear: the specific intention behind the state naming and singling out journalists it doesn't like is to put those journalists in danger.
November 30, 2025 at 9:29 AM
To be clear: the specific intention behind the state naming and singling out journalists it doesn't like is to put those journalists in danger.
As we say in the article: "A world that returns to global warming of 1.5°C will be a significantly altered and more damaged world than if this level of warming had never been exceeded."
November 24, 2025 at 9:19 AM
As we say in the article: "A world that returns to global warming of 1.5°C will be a significantly altered and more damaged world than if this level of warming had never been exceeded."