{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0125, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0038461538461538464, 'mean_word_length': 5.196428571428571, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reframing climate risk to build public support for radical emission reductions: the role of deliberative democracy

Some commentators have responded to the diminishing possibility of limiting warming to a global average of 2°C by stressing the need for immediate and radical cuts in emissions. Other commentators have responded by asking whether we should abandon the 2°C target altogether. This paper intervenes in this emerging debate by asking who should be involved in deciding what is to be done. It is argued that deciding the future of the 2°C target should be conducted through democratic deliberation in order to build awareness of the climate risks that radical emission cuts are seeking to avoid. Allowing subordinate perspectives into the newly emergent 2°C policy space will allow for a co-production of knowledge about humanity’s options at this historic moment. This process is intended to build positive public engagement with the radical emissions reduction plan and widen the palette of socially acceptable policy options.