I often see statements to the effect that "to avoid the worst consequences of climate change global emissions need to drop by 7.6 percent each year for the next decade". This is a tad misleading, as the worst effects of climate change happen with the most warming. 1/5
If the world wants to limit warming to below 1.5C above preindustrial levels, we have to reduce emissions at that rate (though the odds of the whole world achieving that rate of mitigation at this point are, unfortunately, vanishingly small). 2/5
However, the worst impacts of climate change don't happen suddenly when we cross a 1.5C threshold. Impacts are larger (but still manageable in most cases) at 2C, are larger still at 2.5C, 3C, 4C, 5C, etc. The more we emit the worse it gets. 3/5
Its makes a lot more sense to say that "if we want to minimize the impacts of climate change" we need to achieve the most ambitious mitigation targets. But we also need to acknowledge that mitigation is not cost free, and there are real difference b/w 1.5C and 2C pathways. 4/5
The framing of 1.5C or bust implied by these type of statements is deeply problematic. It is setting us up for failure when it becomes clear 1.5C is out of reach, emboldens the growing contingent of doomists, and risks making perfect policy the enemy of the good. 5/5
