4 ms·

Was limiting warning below 2° ever realistic? I can't understand why 1.5° when it was clear to everyone that there was no way in hell that is happening. Why not

Was limiting warning below 2° ever realistic? I can't understand why 1.5° when it was clear to everyone that there was no way in hell that is happening. Why not set a realistic goal and try to figure out the best way to deal with the consequences?

adrianN 4y ago
We've known about climate change for at least fifty years now. Every goal we set since then has been "realistic" with considerable effort. Unfortunately we never even attempted to reach them, so we raise the goal by a degree or two every decade or two.
- goatlover 4y ago
  Realistic means it's likely people will put considerable effort into achieving said climate goal, not whether it's possible. Everyone on earth could join hands and achieve world peace or governments could decide to pour trillions into terraforming Mars. But neither is likely to happen.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    If you want to lose weight, just setting a goal is insufficient, you have to change your habits too, no matter how unambitious your goal is. It's the same with climate change.
pyrale 4y ago
It depends on what you call realistic. If your objection to realism is that it's hard to convince politicians to act on this topic, then 2° is still not very realistic, and the future is likely going to be very bleak. If it's about having the understanding and technical means to define new targets for our economy in order to reach that goal, even if it means reducing our consumption, then yes, it was a reasonable goal back when we started considering the issue seriously.
- goatlover 4y ago
  I don't see how reducing consumption is a realistic goal considering the economic and political fallout from pursuing such reduction. What political parties would be suicidal enough to put such policies into place? When would a majority of the voting public support such goals in most countries, particularly the biggest polluters? Are governments going to keep such policies going once mass protests break out when unemployment hits record highs? We got to see how much people were willing to put up with during the pandemic, and the answer is not that much reduction for very long, at least not the kind that would seriously curb emissions.
  - pyrale 4y ago
    > Are governments going to keep such policies going once mass protests break out when unemployment hits record highs? See, that's the difference between an organized society planning this change and just letting it happen.

adrianN 4y ago

We've known about climate change for at least fifty years now. Every goal we set since then has been "realistic" with considerable effort. Unfortunately we never even attempted to reach them, so we raise the goal by a degree or two every decade or two.

goatlover 4y ago
Realistic means it's likely people will put considerable effort into achieving said climate goal, not whether it's possible. Everyone on earth could join hands and achieve world peace or governments could decide to pour trillions into terraforming Mars. But neither is likely to happen.
- adrianN 4y ago
  If you want to lose weight, just setting a goal is insufficient, you have to change your habits too, no matter how unambitious your goal is. It's the same with climate change.

pyrale 4y ago

It depends on what you call realistic. If your objection to realism is that it's hard to convince politicians to act on this topic, then 2° is still not very realistic, and the future is likely going to be very bleak. If it's about having the understanding and technical means to define new targets for our economy in order to reach that goal, even if it means reducing our consumption, then yes, it was a reasonable goal back when we started considering the issue seriously.

goatlover 4y ago
I don't see how reducing consumption is a realistic goal considering the economic and political fallout from pursuing such reduction. What political parties would be suicidal enough to put such policies into place? When would a majority of the voting public support such goals in most countries, particularly the biggest polluters? Are governments going to keep such policies going once mass protests break out when unemployment hits record highs? We got to see how much people were willing to put up with during the pandemic, and the answer is not that much reduction for very long, at least not the kind that would seriously curb emissions.
- pyrale 4y ago
  > Are governments going to keep such policies going once mass protests break out when unemployment hits record highs? See, that's the difference between an organized society planning this change and just letting it happen.