• Even greater risks to human rights than the risks posed
by aggressive mitigation action arise from the profound impacts of climate change, especially if temperature increase exceeds 2 °C, which becomes increasingly likely if mitigation is delayed.
Answering of continually answering my question with a question why don't you merely back up your assertions by pointing me to some studies that could tell all of us on this forum what temperature reduction could be expected
by the aggressive mitigation measures proposed.
Not exact matches
However, it does not follow that the OECD countries must therefore engage in an
aggressive mitigation policy over the next fifty years to cut their emissions
by 80 %
by 2050.
In order to provide
aggressive carbon
mitigation there is a body of opinion that believes there is an overriding aim to initially stabilise the concentrations and then subsequently reduce them to 350 ppm — generally considered a «safe» level
by 350.org whose luminaries include Dr. James Hansen and Al Gore.
Due to past emissions, and taking into account the most
aggressive mitigation strategies, peak mean global warming in the 21st Century can limited close to 1.5 C, with warming dropping to below 1.5
by 2100.
It doesn't appear to do it substantially actually, so we would still be looking, even with the most
aggressive mitigation scenarios, at quite a significant loss of Arctic sea ice
by the end of the century.