Description:
<jats:p>A rejection by current generations of more ambitious mitigation of carbon emissions inflicts on future generations inherently objectionable risks about which they have no choice. Any gains through savings from less ambitious mitigation, which are relatively minor, would accrue to current generations, and all losses, which are relatively major, would fall on future generations. This mitigation gamble is especially unjustifiable because it imposes a risk of unlimited losses until carbon emissions cease. Ultimate physical collapses remain possible. Much more ominous is prior social collapse from political struggles over conflicting responses to threatened physical collapse. The two most plausible objections to the thesis that less ambitious mitigation is unjustifiable rely, respectively, on the claim that negative emissions will allow a later recovery from a temporary overshoot in emissions and on the claim that ambitious mitigation is incompatible with poverty alleviation that depends on inexpensive fossil fuels. Neither objection stands up. Reliance on negative emissions later instead of ambitious mitigation now permits the passing of tipping points for irreversible change meanwhile, and non-carbon energy is rapidly becoming price competitive in developing countries like India that are committed to poverty alleviation.</jats:p><jats:p>This article is part of the themed issue ‘The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels’.</jats:p>