Thanks! Again it’s unclear what/who you are disagreeing with as no one is disputing that a ton permanently avoided now helps in all futures.
To clarify: The point that Florian and I were making was simply what you state that you agree with—namely that tipping points make the nonlinearity of expected climate damage worse rather than, as often argued, flattening it because nearby tipping points could easily catapult us in really high-warming futures.
This is an important point for impact-oriented philanthropists because we are, de facto, choosing between solutions with different expected performance in different futures.
Thanks! Again it’s unclear what/who you are disagreeing with as no one is disputing that a ton permanently avoided now helps in all futures.
To clarify: The point that Florian and I were making was simply what you state that you agree with—namely that tipping points make the nonlinearity of expected climate damage worse rather than, as often argued, flattening it because nearby tipping points could easily catapult us in really high-warming futures.
This is an important point for impact-oriented philanthropists because we are, de facto, choosing between solutions with different expected performance in different futures.