In the excerpt from Thunberg's speech, she moves from a general premise about CO2 usage to a specific prediction about emissions, as explained below.
<h3>What is Thunberg's reasoning?</h3>
This question concerns the ending of the speech given by Greta Thunberg at the United Nations. Thunberg mentions the following:
- We can still have a 67% chance to stay below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise.
- To accomplish that, back in 2018, we had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit.
- However, that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.
- In conclusion, our CO2 budget will be over in just 8 and a half years.
We can see that Thunberg goes from a general premise to a specific prediction about emissions. The premise consists of everything she says about the amount of CO2 we are allowed to emit. The prediction is that we will use up that amount in just 8 years.
With the information above in mind, we can select option B as the correct answer concerning Thunberg's reasoning. She moves from a general premise about CO2 usage to a specific prediction about emissions.
The missing excerpt is the following:
"To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.
"How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just 'business as usual' and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years."
Learn more about Greta Thunberg here:
brainly.com/question/28419470
#SPJ1
Beautiful, attractive, enhance, ornament, decorate, etc. <span />
Hard question
the end of world war II in a prisoners point of view would not matter. the prisoners would not care because they have nothing to loose/ nothing to gain. the prisoners would just want to be free and explore the "new" world
It is a fragment because it need more writing to it
