\n
This slideshow goes over the basic arguments, and puts forth the grounds for supporting the 1250 approach.<\/h5>\n<\/div>\r\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\n
We fully agree with James Hansen on all his points above, and believe that it makes little sense not to be acting on methane and other non-CO2 reductions ambitiously right away, especially in light of the political gridlock surrounding the much more challenging problem of cutting CO2 emissions <\/p>\nIndeed, one primary problem today is that no governing body is nearly ambitious enough in its goals for these non-CO2 climate factors, although they will play a key role in the future path of climate change – indeed, from now through the middle of this century, they will play a dominant role.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
e strongly agree with Bill McKibben that atmospheric CO2 needs to be brought down to 350ppm, if not lower. But the library above should convince you that this CO2 goal is by no means enough now. Indeed, we at 1250 feel that our near-term goal is necessary to stave off catastrophe and thereby help to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1007,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"yoast_head":"\n
why 1250? The 1250 rationale<\/title>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n