Good question. The research done by these folks suggests the following (from the article): > "They found that if climate change is limited to 1.5 °C, the bioma

Good question. The research done by these folks suggests the following (from the article): > "They found that if climate change is limited to 1.5 °C, the biomass of the top revenue-generating fish species will be on average 6.5% higher than it would be with 3.5 °C of warming. Sustainable catch levels of these species will be 7.3%, or 3.3 million metric tons, greater than they would be if we stay on our current trajectory." So, 1.5C warming is better than 3.5C warming because the top-revenue-generating fish biomass with 1.5C warming is 6.5% higher than with 3.5 C warming. Put another way, excessive warming (3.5C) decreases fish biomass availability relative to less extreme warming scenarios. Curtailing the progression of climatic warming, therefore, appears to be an important step in ensuring sustainable fish stocks. This is the "so what."