Our very last discussion of this journey was on what alternatives we have to 2-degree target.
Arguing the temperature target is the most appropriate target, we stated that the target should be rather political than scientific. Considering scientists are not the only one who should act, it is substantial to make public and policy makers act. Therefore, it is significantly important to be comprehensible and sensible for them so that non-experts can be convinced enough to initiate their action. In this sense, temperature target has a clear figure with familiar unit for non-scientists to be understood by other members of society.
We do admit that it is not a perfect target but here we argue that it is the best option among those we have at the moment. In the operation of temperature target, it does require concept of carbon budget in practice.
I appreciated that we discussed other methods and aspects of climate target, which I have not considered so much. However, I think we could have discussed whether 2-degree target is appropriate in depth with good reasonings, however I had a feeling that we were busy understanding suggested alternatives. In my point of view, alternatives mentioned can be done under the frame of 2-degree target as a measure in operation. Taxation on carbon was one of those, which I found a measure within the frame. I do agree that the logic can work, however I have to say it cannot be a target with following reasons.
Setting a reasonable and optimal tax of carbon is so unclear since it cannot be applied uniformly on different countries. In addition to this, loading tax at the extraction point is basically rising the oil price, which can trigger prevailing problems within that region or even globally. Rise of oil price has proven to cause local and global socio-economic problems in alliance of political situation. Majority of oil producing region has higher political instability which I think extreme concentration of capital can cause even more severe results.
Depending on one method increase uncertainty and risk at the same time. If we regulate emission and temperature rise only depending on one method, no matter which method it is there will be additional uncertainty from the fact that we are relying on only one method without any replacement.
Finding optimal carbon tax does not mean that emission reaches zero eventually. There will be still certain amount of emission according to optimal carbon tax, which implies that there is still contribution to temperature increase. With reasons mentioned above, setting optimal carbon tax cannot be a target itself but as a mean to reach 2-degree target, it does have capacity to play an essential role.
Target has different dimensions of its role. From my side, the most important components of the role is to be understood by whom it is targeting so that it is convincing enough to initiate some actions from them. In this sense, I would like to emphasize once again that 2-degree target is fairly comprehensible and easy to feel some sense for non-experts which means it has solid enough reasoning to be a climate target.
The 2-degree target – or rather limit – is indeed a well defined goal. As I write this, the panel discussion with Hermann Held has taken place, where he described how well defined he thinks this scientifically described limit is. On the other hand, Oliver Geden was not so happy with this target for its weakness in terms of political action. So, he favors an alternative, the net-zero emission target, meaning that no state should be allowed to emit any net CO2. For applications, where emissions are unavoidable, CO2 extraction technology needs to be applied. This would lead to a directly measurable result and could lead to direct and pragmatic action to avoid or withdraw CO2.
The CO2 tax, on the other hand – as was discussed in our role play – is a measure not a target.