Emily Cunningham

No. It's one thing to say, we have a goal, and we don't yet know how to reach it, so let's act, not argue. It's the opposite thing to say, we don't know how to reach a goal, so demanding a strong outcome is wrong. The first is prudent, the second is predatory delay.https://twitter.com/bradplumer/status/1123328886400532481 …

I like how you frame this here. There should be no argument about getting to zero as fast as possible, so immediate action is required, whether or not we know now the means to get to zero. HOW to get to zero is a separate but related question.

I'm confused. What abt @atrembath @bradplumer's tweets say "we don't know how to reach a goal, so demanding a strong outcome is wrong." Based on everything I've ever seen them tweet-both support moving forward on climate change ASAP (but arguing abt timelines now is time wasted).

The most important thing is to define an appropriate level of effort. The minimum level of effort is halving of global emissions by 2030. If we're arguing about how much further to go beyond that, then I agree, it's not worth spending much time on that.

But like…we’re not going to halve global emissions by 2030. So some other definition of “minimum level of effort” is gonna have to be acceptable.

Seems to me the most important thing is putting policies and concrete actions in place that bend us toward deep decarbonization and net zero. The distance between where we are today and that trajectory is *vastly* bigger than the distance between 1.5° vs 2° or whatever.

We all agree on "policies and concrete actions in place that bend us toward deep decarbonization." The question is: Does setting bold, specific emissions goals make such policies & actions more likely, or less? I think they make action so much more likely they're indispensable.