There is surely some set of numbers and dates that constitutes a bound
for a certain terribleness of consequence. We don't know what those
are. The possibility that there are sharp threshholds exists, but we
don't know exactly where those are on the forcing trajectory (which
involves other things besides CO2 emissions, after all, to make
matters still more complicated).
By calling for action so vigorous that it is unlikely to happen,
Monbiot runs the risk of demoralizing as many people as he energizes.
That doesn't mean his choice is unreasonable; it requires careful
thought as to what the consequences are. One could argue without
stretching the point too far that we are already experiencing an
ecological collapse, after all.
I think avoiding setting targets althogether, though, is probably as
bad as or worse than making an overly specific guess. It makes the
situation seem relatively benign and indefinitely postponable.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
