Thanks. Yes, the marginal damage of missing the 3°C threshold by 0.1°C is higher than the marginal damage of missing the 1.5°C threshold by the same amount—and this gap is widening if we include tipping points.
However, benefits are cumulative—i.e. staying below e.g., 2°C reduces the risk of damages and tipping elements at that temperature threshold and those of higher temperatures. A ton of CO2 we avoid today contributes to both goals. So even in terms of relative importance, I would still disagree.
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.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with it being important to reduce emissions as much as possible, the question is about relative importance.
Thanks. Yes, the marginal damage of missing the 3°C threshold by 0.1°C is higher than the marginal damage of missing the 1.5°C threshold by the same amount—and this gap is widening if we include tipping points.
However, benefits are cumulative—i.e. staying below e.g., 2°C reduces the risk of damages and tipping elements at that temperature threshold and those of higher temperatures. A ton of CO2 we avoid today contributes to both goals. So even in terms of relative importance, I would still disagree.
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.