So how does what we've learnt about the 2 degree C target link back to my
scepticism? Well I think I can make two key points out of my reading on
dangerous climate change targets.
The 2 degree C target emerged from a need to motivate:
- Simply saying that we needed to avoid dangerous climate change
failed to promote action. Meta-targets are a vital tool for
translating climate change research into global policy
- Where the issue at hand requires global cooperation, the likes of which has never been seen, a common and definitive goal is a vital (Geden, 2013).
- The prevalent 2 degree C meta-target has been built upon a flawed danger threshold approach
- As these flaws have been brought to light the meta-target has lost authority.
The past success of the 2 degree C target is now almost a thorn in the side of the climate change community.
- To shed the target now could undermine the progress achieved in
motivating the public and politicians over the past decade
- Climate change sceptics have a history of criminalising backtracking within the climate science community, despite this being a normal response to new evidence.
- Take for example this point raised on yahoo answers of all places:
 |
| https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140520011715AA9EM73 |
- While the target is presently more political than it is scientific, it is likely the scientific community who will take the greatest hit to their credibility from efforts to abandon it.
- As Geden (2013) points out:
‘Any associated loss of credibility could, some
claim, seriously reduce what momentum remains in international decarbonization
efforts’
So it looks like I started reading with one
question in mind, “How do we decide a level to stabilise the climate at?”, and
ended up with many more. No wonder so many people feel overwhelmed by the
idea of climate change mitigation
But don’t you worry, in my next few posts I’ll
hopefully end up answering a few of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment