Text 1: Climate scientist Yamada argues that 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming is the critical threshold for catastrophic climate change. Beyond this point, she writes, feedback loops involving permafrost methane and Arctic ice loss may accelerate warming beyond human control. All policy must aim to prevent crossing this line.
Text 2: Climate scientist Vargas worries that the 1.5-degree framing, while well-intentioned, has become counterproductive. Treating one figure as a cliff edge, she argues, implies that 1.4 is safe and 1.6 is doomed — neither of which the science supports. The 1.5 target also invites despair when, as is increasingly likely, it is breached. What matters scientifically is that every tenth of a degree adds harm.
How would Vargas (Text 2) most likely respond to Yamada's claim that "all policy must aim to prevent crossing this line"?
- Acheck_circle
She would argue that the cliff-edge framing distorts the gradual nature of climate harm.
- B
She would agree that 1.5 degrees is a precise scientific cliff edge.
- C
She would propose that policy aim for an even stricter threshold.
- D
She would deny that warming has any harmful effects.
Explanation
Vargas accepts that warming is harmful but rejects framing 1.5 as a binary cliff. B captures her nuanced critique of the framing. A contradicts her; C contradicts both authors; D misreads her continuum view.