The world is going to need a combination of a bunch of policies. It's not just emissions reduction; it's also carbon sinks, and adaptation to the non-avoided im

The world is going to need a combination of a bunch of policies. It's not just emissions reduction; it's also carbon sinks, and adaptation to the non-avoided impacts. Also, none of this needs to happen overnight, and every step along the way is helpful. Even if we fail to achieve the optimistic target of 1.5C, that doesn't mean it's all pointless and we might as well emit whatever. And that means that those targets aren't all that important. We need emissions reductions, the more the merrier, whether or not we hit some kind of arbitrary goal or not. Whether we reach those exact benchmarks you propose or not kind of doesn't matter. I'd just like to additionally point out that however unfair perhaps, the premise of that nature article is some kind of super-unrealistic sci-fi, because there's no question of everybody on the planet having the resources for "high life satisfaction", including perhaps your proposed annual plane trips. In fact, it's likely that the annual median number of plane trips even by Americans is... zero - at least most years: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1579/Airlines.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1579/Airlines.aspx - and even the average is just 2 or so; this is clearly a luxury. Additionally, carbon-negative processes will be necessary. How expensive that turns out to be, and how much carbon planes need to emit will hopefully play a role in pricing plane trips in the future. For now, we could start by at least taxing jet fuel appropriately.