Mike, you point to a key distinction that I had perhaps ignored. The
dynamics of setting goals are not the same as those of realising them.
Economics may have been a major factor in setting the Paris targets but
they are not an enabler of their realisation. If the political will was
there among a sufficient number of leading economies to deliver on the
Paris targets, they would find a way of doing that that would overcome
any economic constraints that might otherwise have been thought to be
impediments.
Regards
Robert
As I loosely recall, when the 2 C goal was approved in Paris, the value
was chosen because it was thought that it would be
realistically/economically achievable. The goal could not be higher due
to thoughts about tipping points or lower due to economic
realities--though they did set 1.5 C as an aspirational goal as the
developing nations felt the impacts of 2 C on them would be unbearable.
So, I'd say economics played a goal there--indeed, even the primary
rationale for the choice.
Mike
On 4/8/23 9:54 AM, Robert Chris wrote:
> David, you've put your finger right on it. Being economically
> realistic is not a sufficient condition to enable the realisation of
> any goal. For some goals, it isn't even a constraint because for
> them, what is economically realistic is made to fit the goal, rather
> than the goal being tailored to fit what's economically realistic.
> Money is not the only store of value.
>
> Regards
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 08/04/2023 18:26, David desJardins wrote:
>> If the goal is always economically realistic, then it follows that
>> looking at the goal through an economic lens will always enable it,
>> not prevent it.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/c1cc3b97-4f27-0715-7bc2-9e09145d5129%40gmail.com.
