Almost 200 governments have agreed to try to limit global warming to below 3.6F (2C) above pre-industrial times, which is seen as a threshold for dangerous changes including more droughts, extinctions, floods and rising seas that could swamp coastal regions and island nations. Temperatures have already risen by 1.4F (0.8C) since the Industrial Revolution.
No, please, none of the \”it\’s not happening\” stuff.
They\’re simply wrong at the most basic theoretical level. We do not want to try and limit temperature changes. We want to limit the costs of attempting to prevent temperature changes. Limit those costs to the costs of allowing the temperature changes to take place of course.
Imagine, just imagine: the actions we need to take to limit to a 2 oC warming include shutting down he entirety of industrial civilisation. Should we therefore do that?
No, clearly not, the costs to us of shutting down industrial civilisation would be vast: the death of perhaps 5 billion people for example. We do not want to have to bear that cost in order to avoid the terrors of climate change if we go over 2oC.
Similarly, if avoiding going over 1oC (again, just imagine) can be done by simply installing solar power as and when it becomes entirely grid comparable without subsidy (hhm, perhaps 10, perhaps 15 years) then we would indeed want to bear that cost even though we\’ll be going nowhere near a 2oC rise.
It is the cost of avoiding versus the benefits of what is being avoided that is the important question: not the actual temperature that is reached or not. They\’re running the entire world on the wrong assumptions.