6 replies
4 recasts
52 reactions
3 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
My two cents:
Firstly, the Paris targets were based on science (IPCC) which hasnāt changed, so the specific values of 1.5Ā°Cā2Ā°C werenāt arbitrary. Shifting the target to 3Ā°Cā4Ā°C isnāt meaningful because they are increasingly catastrophic. We canāt āsuper-dieā or āsuper-killā our environment, biodiversity, and food chain, just like it doesnāt matter how high a building floor youāre jumping from past the 10th floor or so.
Secondly, targets are about *avoidance*. If we move them simply because we overshot them, they werenāt much of targets to begin with. If the initiative is instead about seriously discussing *adaptation* and *mitigation* in a pastā2Ā°C world, then sure, we need that. But thatās orthogonal to shifting the target, which not only does nothing to fix the overshooting factors, and signals that itās ok to keep emitting below the new target (which it isnāt). 1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
2 replies
0 recast
6 reactions