Which target will succeed?

I recently posted a Science editorial that questions a currently fashionable strategy for cutting the risk of climatic calamity. The editorial was titled Playing Poker with Climate Change.

The editorial said that many have urged that we reduce risk of 2C warming, and that we do it by slashing CO2 emissions by 50-60%. I don't think many on this list will argue against avoiding the risk of the 2C scenario.

But the current strategy may not get us there.

The Science editorial pointed to a recent study based on 11 models finding that CO2 reductions of 60% do NOT avert the scary 2C scenario. Also, the editorial pointed out that the strategy of reducing CO2 by only 60% is based on a plan that would not make even that reduction until about 2050.

So, we are all likely asking what will work if the currently popular scheme will not.

There IS an alternative strategy ready for review.

In fact, it has been some years in the making, has relied on the record of evidence from science, and has earned endorsement from the Union of Concerned Scientists' energy expert.

This alternative strategy is aimed toward an 80% reduction of CO2 emissions, not a 60% reduction. And it is aimed at reaching that goal by 2025, or 25 years sooner than the 2050 target.

http://www.globalwarmingsolution.org/pdf/WhitePaper.pdf