,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
I'd like to suggest that the obsession with RCPs is misplaced, a symptom of economic discounting.
In the end, the amount of damage we do is closely linked to the amount of CO2 we emit. Whether it is emitted before or after 2100 has little to do with the extent to which the world is damaged at the end of the carbon pulse.
In the end, we have two choices:
1) Burn all the carbon because of short-term profit.
2) Leave the carbon in the ground and/or reinsert it into minerals after burning it.
1) Burn all the carbon because of short-term profit.
2) Leave the carbon in the ground and/or reinsert it into minerals after burning it.
The key parameter of the problem is not "How much will we emit before 2100?" The key parameter of the problem is "How much will we emit?"
I don't see any reason to believe that RCP8.5 is out of the question as an emission trajectory, but that's not anywhere near as relevant to the ethical question as everyone seems to accept.
The future will not care if it took us two centuries to ruin the world rather than one.
The future will not care if it took us two centuries to ruin the world rather than one.
