[Tol via Heiko]
>> Overall, the
>> 2 °C target of the EU seems unfounded.
Sounds about right to me.
Michael Tobis wrote:
> Let us begin by agreeing that the target must be less than 85 C and
> greater than 0.1 C .
No, let us begin by asking what is the purpose of a "target" (or even
"limit")?
> I would say a 10% chance of severe disruptions is about as risky as we
> should get. Nobody would construct a bridge with a 10% chance of
> severe injury to anyone crossing it. Yet here we are at least flirting
> with that sort of thing for the entire planet.
Um, people drive cars, and the lifetime probability of a crash is surely
above the 10% mark. Traffic crashes are the largest cause of death among
young adult males in the UK for certain, and probably much of the rest
of the world. Of course, it is disproportionately the poor who suffer.
The problem is especially grave in less developed countries.
Just a bit of context...
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
