The interesting thing here is how 'if the world can substantially bring down carbon dioxide emissions', the result will be a quite minor change in outcomes (at

The interesting thing here is how 'if the world can substantially bring down carbon dioxide emissions', the result will be a quite minor change in outcomes (at least using this unusual departure 'milestone'). For example, highlighted in the article: Washington DC's 2069 climate if we do nothing will be the same as Washington DC's 2071 climate if we 'substantially bring down carbon dioxide emissions'. According to the article this result is "significantly mitigat[ing] the effects of climate change". The expenditure that moves that date 2 years is going to be astronomical. I WANT to be convinced that these measures make sense, but so far it all seems very flaky (not climate change - what we're doing about it).