Tyranny of climate targets

TL;DR

Matthew Yglesias argues climate policy fixates on unattainable targets like 1.5 degrees warming instead of cost-effective emissions reductions.
COP28 in Dubai prompted debate, with Sultan Al Jaber calling fossil fuel phaseout unscientific absent tech breakthroughs; states like California ban new gas car sales and Michigan targets grid decarbonization by 2040.
Targets distract from key questions of emissions abated per dollar spent, pushing inefficient policies in politically feasible places.

The story at a glance

Matthew Yglesias critiques the climate movement's obsession with symbolic targets during COP28 in Dubai, hosted by oil-rich UAE. Key figures include UAE's Sultan Al Jaber, who questioned phasing out fossil fuels, and US climate envoy John Kerry defending the 1.5-degree goal. The piece, published amid COP28 controversy on December 6, 2023, argues this target-chasing ignores practical abatement costs.[[1]](https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-tyranny-of-climate-targets)

Key points

COP28 hosting in Dubai highlighted tensions, as Al Jaber said there's no science for zero fossil fuels without huge costs or tech advances, though Yglesias notes this overstates but raises valid cost concerns.[[1]](https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-tyranny-of-climate-targets)
Kerry countered with G7 commitment to phase out unmitigated fossil emissions while eyeing 1.5 degrees as north star.
Models back from 1.5-degree target trace to emissions paths demanding near-zero unmatched fossil use post certain dates, sparking allocation fights across countries and sectors.
Global targets will miss, but advocates push maximum ambition where possible, like California phasing out new internal combustion engine car sales and Michigan's 2040 clean grid goal.[[1]](https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-tyranny-of-climate-targets)
This cascades into nested sub-targets that sideline core policy questions: emissions cuts achieved and at what cost.

Details and context

Climate policy often treats reduction like any issue with cost-effective margins up to a point, but targets create abstractions detached from reality. Yglesias contrasts denialist right with establishment locked into modeling chains from temperature goals to energy bans. Examples show subnational action where political power exists, yet without cost-benefit scrutiny.

Targets feel urgent because 1.5 degrees emerged from Paris Agreement aspirations, but models assume perfect global coordination unlikely amid developing world growth needs. Better focus: policies maximizing abatement per dollar, like potential carbon pricing or standards, though piece emphasizes avoiding inefficient overreach.

Key quotes

Sultan Al Jaber: “no science” behind phasing out fossil fuel use, “unless you want to take the world back into caves.”[[1]](https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-tyranny-of-climate-targets)

John Kerry: “the G7 countries voted that there should be a phasing out of unmitigated fossil fuel emissions and what there is science for is keeping 1.5 degrees as your North Star.”[[1]](https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-tyranny-of-climate-targets)

Why it matters

Fixation on targets risks squandering political capital on low-impact mandates while real abatement opportunities go untapped. Policymakers and advocates get concrete guidance to prioritize bang-for-buck over symbolic dates, aiding voters facing energy costs and businesses navigating rules. Watch if states or feds shift to cost-focused tools like pricing, though entrenched movements may resist.

TL;DR

Matthew Yglesias critiques fixation on symbolic, unattainable climate targets amid COP28 debates.
Key example: California bans new gas car sales; Michigan eyes 2040 grid decarbonization.
Main argument: Policy should prioritize emissions cuts per dollar spent, not target-chasing.[[1]](https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-tyranny-of-climate-targets)