6 replies
3 recasts
50 reactions
3 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
My two cents:
Firstly, the Paris targets were based on science (IPCC) which hasn’t changed, so the specific values of 1.5°C–2°C weren’t arbitrary. Shifting the target to 3°C–4°C isn’t meaningful because they are increasingly catastrophic. We can’t “super-die” or “super-kill” our environment, biodiversity, and food chain, just like it doesn’t matter how high a building floor you’re jumping from past the 10th floor or so.
Secondly, targets are about *avoidance*. If we move them simply because we overshot them, they weren’t much of targets to begin with. If the initiative is instead about seriously discussing *adaptation* and *mitigation* in a past–2°C world, then sure, we need that. But that’s orthogonal to shifting the target, which not only does nothing to fix the overshooting factors, and signals that it’s ok to keep emitting below the new target (which it isn’t). 1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions