The two temperature thresholds given 1.5℃ and 2℃ are the points of reversibility without widespread severe damage and widespread, catastrophic damage, respectively. As a fix, Renewable energy would have to increase from its current share of electrical production of 20% to 67%, by 2050. Coal, which currently accounts for 40% of total electrical production, would also need to drop to between 1-7% in the same time frame. As a technological fix, inventing a “clean coal” or increasing the production and storage capacity of either new or existing renewable resources would help to alleviate some of the CO2 stress. While the thought of any sort of miraculous technological fix may seem overly naive in its optimism, a socio-technological fix would require something even more extraordinary. While it may be the most effective way of limiting temperature change to 1.5℃, it would require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” (IPCC Press Release). Unfortunately, climate science has become an incredibly politicized topic and any sort of societal level changes would need to have a coming together of various political ideologies. While it may be possible, a socio-technological fix is highly unlikely. (Davenport, NYT)
While many opponents to the idea of climate change may argue that the science itself is still in its infancy, we can see that even as far back as 1861, climate change has been a recognized and concerning event. Tyndall sums up the early understanding of the connectivity of the environment as follows, “Any changes to the constitution of the atmosphere ‘would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes on the environment… Such changes may have produced all the mutations which the research of geologists reveal.’” (Reidy, 13) Also, concerning the specificity of the temperatures as well as the timeline presented by the IPCC, it’s evident that climate change has evolved past it’s supposed “infancy”.