Without reading the article (why yes, i am a bad person), from a number of years ago it was not at all obvious that the human endeavor is capable of hitting tar

Without reading the article (why yes, i am a bad person), from a number of years ago it was not at all obvious that the human endeavor is capable of hitting targets to limit global warming to +2C or even +3C. I am not sure that talking about a +1.5C target in 2019 is particularly useful <+>. That said, arguments in terms of remaining "carbon budget" or "cumulative emissions budget", as the article uses here, are a useful way of framing the problem. Perhaps an unrealistic target is still a useful tool to focus policy attention. <+> i reckon _logically_ it is still possible to limit warming to +1.5C degrees, but in terms of plausible pathways to reach that target, the pathway might look something more like "massive global human population loss due to X" rather than "solar panels" or "carbon sequestration" or "global one child policy" or "overthrow of capitalism"...