Hi folks

It seems to me that we should distinguish between

1) whether this is a reasonable statement, on the facts

and

2) whether this is a reasonable goal.

> The Stern report, Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change,
> asserts:
>
> "The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially
> reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised
> between 450 and 550ppm CO2 equivalent (CO2e)."

1) This talks about the 'worst impacts' being less likely if greenhouse
gas levels can be stabilised at a level somewhat higher than we have now.
I can't see how this is an unreasonable statement, given that the 'worst
impacts' would clearly be the result of unstabilised greenhouse gas levels
increasing to even higher levels.

2) Is it a reasonable goal to set this greenhouse gas level as the target?
That's the real debate.

Best wishes

Mil

--
Justice Not Vengeance www.j-n-v.org
44 (0)1424 428 792 44 (0)7980 748 555