Something you need to know: the writers of pieces do not write the headlines nor do they write the little bits underneath them. That is done by the sub editors of the paper. And sadly, they\’re not always entirely accurate.
We must agree to halt deforestation and curtail air travel now if the Copenhagen summit is to succeed
That isn\’t quite what Nick Stern actually said in the piece itself.
So we must find a further cut of 5bn tonnes on top of current intentions for 2020. This is achievable. For example, greater efforts on tackling deforestation could reduce emissions cost-effectively by at least another 2.5bn tonnes. International shipping and aviation could further reduce the global total by at least half a billion tonnes.
That\’s what he did say.
Now leave aside all the stuff about whether he\’s right or not for a moment and just look at the two statements above. They\’re simply not the same, are they? But it\’s the \”must\”, \”halt\” and \”curtail\” that people will take away from it, not the \”for example\”, \”tackling\”, \”could\”….
Naughty, naughty subs.