Could 2.5 Degrees of Global Warming Be a Better Target Than 1.5 Degrees?
Five arguments from a “climate emergency skeptic” who is more than willing to change his mind.
Climate change has recently been upgraded to “climate emergency” and other dramatic titles like “climate crisis” and even “climate apocalypse.”
As a “climate emergency skeptic,” I fully accept the scientific evidence that climate change is real, predominantly caused by human influences, and an important global problem we must address. My skepticism starts where climate change gets elevated to an international emergency that merits a complex, costly, and risky transformation of the energy-industrial system (the very foundation of our modern society) within a single generation. At present, I see many other problems that deserve higher priority.
That being said, I want to clarify that I’m certainly not advocating for inaction. What the data tells me is that we should strive for a global CO2 tax around 50 $/ton, heavily skewed toward the rich world. In other words, the West can strive for “net-zero by 2050” using CO2 taxes well beyond 100 $/ton, whereas regions like South/South-East Asia and Africa are left free to develop using unabated fossil fuels if that is most economical solution.
