Not sure - but I’d be surprised if New Scientist don’t record it, but whether it’ll be behind a paywall I don’t know? Sorry not to be more helpful.

Net zero 2050 is a political anchor increasingly distant from the science aligned with our UNFCCC, Paris &ICJ commitments. Simple Q. As we face a cumulative emission challenge & global emissions are still rising, how can we still have the same end date. Each year we fail so the date moves closer.

My comment was specifically aimed at those on “high incomes … accompanied by prestige, status and glittering honours”. My experience is that early-career researchers (ECRs), and many others, typically remain more committed to integrity and to careful, considered interpretations of their work.

Perhaps, but I also think we hugely underestimate the allure of prestige and high income. I suspect we all like to think we're immune to such temptations, but in our quieter, more reflective moments, I think we're aware of our own more ephemeral foibles.

Thanks for you ongoing moral clarity! To add to your point, I think we need to stop letting people call the more delusional proposals like planetary scale CDR or solar geoengineering techno-optimism. A more accurate term is techno-salvationism because these claims are more ideology than science.

Lots of Linkedin academics are less appreciative of my intervention … only to be expected really.

It's much less "they" and much more "we" who have to reduce. We're not all in this together, in terms of responsibility, capacity, wherewithal and even influence.

Both are at play - but I think we hugely underestimate the allure of prestige and high incomes ...

Thanks Barry for reminding of this - I completely forgot that I'd previously penned something explicit on individual and collective action as two sides of the same coin.