I have been keenly interested in ecology and the climate for decades, and my engineering degree included basic chemistry, calculus, and physics, etc. I don't believe what these people say at all. They have lied so often, they have corrupted their data repeatedly, and their only solution is more tyrannical government, more exorbitant taxes, less freedom, less liberty, less choices. WRONG.

Man was not put on this earth to live in hive colonies, or in labor camps.

WE THE PEOPLE SAY : NO!

When the agitators who keep shouting about the climate start PERSONALLY ACTING like there is a real emergency, and STRICTLY limit their OWN energy usage to what they demand from others, then we will reconsider their trustworthiness. Until then, they can take a hike.

Another Marxist screed masquerading as science or something. "...economic goals as a whole will need to be shifted, away from relentless GDP growth and the pursuit of wealth, towards prioritizing basic human needs and reducing inequality." Christians have been promoting that idea for a couple thousand years, but they do it through teaching and persuasion. Leftists intend to do it through government compulsion, never mind that every time socialism has been tried, it has resulted in widespread death, oppression, and poverty. But it's a "CLIMATE EMERGENCY" so we have to give up capitalism (freedom)! It's all a load of nonsense. Don't let a good crisis go to waste. Better yet, invent the crisis. There is no climate emergency, and now we know that being a scientist (one of the 11,000 anyway) doesn't mean you're smart.

@MattyE, I, on my side, have been keenly interested in ecology and the climate for decades, and my engineering degree included basic chemistry, calculus, and physics, etc. I absolutely believe what these people are saying.
......Climate deniers, wake up and smell the manure!!!

Although I do believe we are reaching a climate emergency I wholeheartedly disagree with so many of the plans and the fact that so many of them put the onus on the consumer.
We did not create the problem.
We did not convert from reusable glass containers to single use plastics in most food products.
We did not convert from paper shopping bags to single use plastic ones.
We did not switch from wrapping meat in butcher's paper to Styrofoam trays and plastic food wrap.
When asked to recycle that stuff we did but most of it still ends up in dumps put there by the companies being paid to recycle waste.

The only thing we the consumer are guilty of, besides over reproducing, is believing the corporate garbage about using their products to better our lives. All we are doing is lining the pockets of the people that are really responsible. It is time the consumer starts to fight back by avoiding anything that is harmful in the long run and using our heads when we buy.

The primary goal is to "switch from fossil fuels to renewable sources as quickly as possible"? So it's clear there were no economists drafting this "report". It's POSSIBLE to end fossil fuel use this year, but it would be an economic disaster. Of course, it might be worth the cost because it would be a political disaster, too; a lot of fanatics would get unelected. And speaking of unscientific thoughts, what kind of science leads to "wealthier countries need to help less-wealthy ones"? The answer, of course, is no kind; this is a pure political position trying to masquerade as science.
But the biggest point is this: the entire story is about things WE must DO. There is absolutely nothing about why warming is an emergency. SO, they want people to break the economy and they won't even tell us what's the rush!

Apparently the "They're all hypocrites" brigade hasn't yet figured out a riposte to the fact the Greta Thunberg came to address the UN by sailing across the atlantic, so they're ignoring it. The good news is that there still is a way out; the bad news is that enough people are against it that any halt to human population growth will be unplanned.

I am a retired scientist with degrees in both physics and chemistry. I have been saddened to watch the decline in science credibility. Most of the work now done in labs is by people with little science training. The analysis is being done on machines which are advertised to need no special training. Much of the work is done by people who have no idea what they are doing but can read the directions on the machine and push a button. In other words, minimum wage workers with little scientific knowledge. Even most of the standards used today are based on copies of copies of copies of standards which were actually done with wet analysis in the 1950s and 1960s by real chemists. I found an unbelievable number of standard equipment used in labs all over the world with design and major software errors being run by technicians with no idea that their results were wrong. I have had to deal with statisticians who believed that the math purified corrupt data. So many people who have no concept of what the real problems are hired by people, who only wanted maximum profit, dictating the results they want. In short most scientific work is not done by real scientists and even most of the real scientists say what they are paid to say. Despite all of the warts, science and technology have moved ahead at an amazing pace. Now as to this article, what caught my eye wasn't the errors in perception and reality about climate but the claim that wealthier countries must help less-weathy ones. They seem to forget that cheap fossil fuels made us wealthy in the first place. It makes us able to grow enough cheap food to feed much of the world. It allows us to drive to work and heat our homes. It allows our standard of living. The socialist idea of taking from the rich will not help global warming but will increase global poverty and reduce personal freedom. Global warming is the least of our problems. The corrupt politicians trying to use global warming as a boogeyman to gain power and control over us is problem #1. Pollution and overpopulation are # 2&3.

What qualifies one to be a scientist? Not much from what I can extract from this article.
Their solution is to return to the post Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction.

Nobody, Aksdad; well said; "just drink the koolaid & all will be well"...Socialism has NEVER worked for the masses, only for the elites in control.
Jesus gave us the best plan to follow.

So reading through the comments it looks like the reason we can’t possibly be having a climate emergency is because we have an irrational fear of socialism and that modern scientists such as myself only spend about 9 years becoming scientists unlike the the three years it took in the fifties?
Giving up the car to go to and from work is not a hardship and won’t make you poorer or your life less worthwhile. It may make you live a bit longer and if you ride or walk significant distances instead it may even keep you mobile longer. Giving up meat won’t make you suddenly weak or feeble. And neither of those life changes will make you poorer.
The evidence and sciences suggest we are not managing the planet sustainably. That means we must change the way we live which means we must change the way we govern. Capitalism and consumerism have been a wonderful experience for many but it cannot go on indefinitely. As in all social change it will be difficult and some things we have come to take for granted will have to be relinquished to history.
And history shows that if we don’t do it early the smart and easy way the options become fewer and harder.
On the bright side no idiot has suggested is only 400ppm so it can’t matter yet on this thread...