I’m largely in agreement with other commenters, but see two points worth adding.
1. Project Drawdown’s list of solutions is prioritized only by their emission aversion potential, and this is not the only possible framework for prioritizing climate solutions. If we try to minimize climate damage rather than maximize emissions reductions it may lead to a different ordering of solutions, likely one which better addresses the worst-case possibilities of climate change (e.g. the catastrophic or existential risks associated with very high warming which EAs are especially likely to see as important).
2. Canada (and Western economies in general) account for a very small fraction of remaining emissions this century. Whether or not Canada fails to meet its policy targets will have a very small effect on overall emissions this century, which is a factor I’d be interested in seeing considered in future posts.
Thanks for taking the time to write up your thoughts.
I’m largely in agreement with other commenters, but see two points worth adding.
1. Project Drawdown’s list of solutions is prioritized only by their emission aversion potential, and this is not the only possible framework for prioritizing climate solutions. If we try to minimize climate damage rather than maximize emissions reductions it may lead to a different ordering of solutions, likely one which better addresses the worst-case possibilities of climate change (e.g. the catastrophic or existential risks associated with very high warming which EAs are especially likely to see as important).
2. Canada (and Western economies in general) account for a very small fraction of remaining emissions this century. Whether or not Canada fails to meet its policy targets will have a very small effect on overall emissions this century, which is a factor I’d be interested in seeing considered in future posts.
Thanks for taking the time to write up your thoughts.