Logically, there is a great deal that could still be done to mitigate global warming. It is more a question of if enough people are knowledgeable of the issues and are actually willing to change their behaviour and apply pressure on the rest of society to force change.
I think there is a huge difference between a +3.0C world in 2100, with stable cumulative emissions, and a +4.5C world in 2100, where the cumulative emissions are still rising. The former is probably very unpleasant (i.e. many people dead, particularly those unfortunate enough to be born poor or in the wrong country), the latter denotes some kind of worsening failure state for human civilisation.
It is unfortunate that climate change is a long-term, uncertain consequence, a collective side-effect of economic activity, overpopulation, etc. If enough of the painful consequences of our actions could be experienced in the short term, across society, we'd probably have a very different attitude and a sharp motivation to change.
> One blueprint for trouble, making collapse likely, is where there is a conflict of interest between the short-term interest of the decision-making elites and the long-term interest of the society as a whole, especially if the elites are able to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions. Where what's good in the short run for the elite is bad for the society as a whole, there's a real risk of the elite doing things that would bring the society down in the long run. -- Jared Diamond
I think there is a huge difference between a +3.0C world in 2100, with stable cumulative emissions, and a +4.5C world in 2100, where the cumulative emissions are still rising. The former is probably very unpleasant (i.e. many people dead, particularly those unfortunate enough to be born poor or in the wrong country), the latter denotes some kind of worsening failure state for human civilisation.
It is unfortunate that climate change is a long-term, uncertain consequence, a collective side-effect of economic activity, overpopulation, etc. If enough of the painful consequences of our actions could be experienced in the short term, across society, we'd probably have a very different attitude and a sharp motivation to change.
> One blueprint for trouble, making collapse likely, is where there is a conflict of interest between the short-term interest of the decision-making elites and the long-term interest of the society as a whole, especially if the elites are able to insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions. Where what's good in the short run for the elite is bad for the society as a whole, there's a real risk of the elite doing things that would bring the society down in the long run. -- Jared Diamond