| > 1.5C is gone - no point clinging to it. And soon 2.0C will be gone - no point clinging to it, right? > However, there is a lot if effort going into decarbonization. I don't see a lot of effort going into decarbonization. We still have about 7% of global GDP going into subsidies for fossil fuels. That's a lot of effort against decarbonization [0]. There is little actual progress being made[1]. Whatever reduction we had can be directly attributed to the economic upheaval created by the Covid pandemic. > having past models being invalidated doesn't mean certain future overshoot Given that our actions in the last 20 years pretty much track the "business as usual" scenario and given that we can eliminate all models that predict a warming of 1.5°C to arise any later than 2024, we're pretty much only left with models that give us a warming of 5°C until 2100[2]. Please note that even that is in the lower bound; the IPC 8.5 has a lower bound of 1.4°C in the 2040 - we've blown past that already. It's only getting worse. > Also, the ecosystem discussion is somewhat orthogonal as we don't now what all is critical to human survival. I'm not sure if you are joking or what. Our dependency on an intact ecosystem is absolute - we cannot exist without it. The "services" that the biosystems around us provide is invaluable and we utterly depend on them. Trying to quantify how much of it you can destroy for the sake of industry and profit is akin to asking how much of your liver you can sell away for cocaine. [0] https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie... [1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... |