<p>Yes, because carbon emissions <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_budget" rel="noreferrer">are like a budget</a>. The Mercator Institute has one of the most commonly cited <a href="https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html" rel="noreferrer">analyses of our carbon budget</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the atmosphere can absorb, calculated from end-2017, no more than 420 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO<sub>2</sub> if we are to stay below the 1.5°C threshold. Annual emissions of CO<sub>2</sub> – from burning fossil fuels, industrial processes and land-use change – are estimated to be around 42 Gt per year, the equivalent of 1,332 tonnes per second. With emissions at a constant level, the budget would be expected to be used up in less than seven years from now. The budget for staying below the 2°C threshold, for its part, of approximately 1,170 Gt, would be exhausted in about 25 years.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, just like a household or business budget, small (but persistent) reductions in spending/emissions do make a difference in the long run.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-20T03:21:57.827Z
2021-06-20T03:21:57.827Z
LShaver
<p>My understanding of climate change is that a large increase in human-caused CO<sub>2</sub> emissions is likely to lead to large change in the Earth's climate through a global warming effect. Scientific consensus appears to me to be that if we make similarly large reductions in CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, we can reduce the magnitude of the consequent warming.</p>
<p>I also understand the climate to have many non-linear mechanisms whereby the link between emission and warming isn't at all straightforward - and so we can only talk about broad averages and so forth, rather than make specific weather predictions.</p>
<p>So is it always true that a reduction in emissions will - on average - cause a reduction in the global warming effect, however small?  Or does the existence of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system" rel="nofollow noreferrer">tipping points</a> or any other factor mean that only large reductions can make a difference now and any lesser reduction will be pointless?</p>
<p>My intuition says that smaller cuts in emissions should still be preferred to no cuts at all, as I imagine that they would reduce the peak warming and/or delay the peak for longer and/or reduce the eventual recovery time. Perhaps not by as much as we might prefer, but still better than nothing. But perhaps my intuition is off.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-20T00:54:30.930Z
So far the atmospheric CO2 is continuing to rise  at an increasing rate , so I wouldn't worry about it being reduced too rapidly. ( See Mauna Loa charts) .
blacksmith37
<climate-change><co2>
Are small reductions in CO2 emissions better than no reductions, in terms of mitigating climate change?
jl6
# Are small reductions in CO2 emissions better than no reductions, in terms of mitigating climate change?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-06-19)

My understanding of climate change is that a large increase in human-caused CO2 emissions is likely to lead to large change in the Earth's climate through a global warming effect. Scientific consensus appears to me to be that if we make similarly large reductions in CO2 emissions, we can reduce the magnitude of the consequent warming.

I also understand the climate to have many non-linear mechanisms whereby the link between emission and warming isn't at all straightforward - and so we can only talk about broad averages and so forth, rather than make specific weather predictions.

So is it always true that a reduction in emissions will - on average - cause a reduction in the global warming effect, however small? Or does the existence of [tipping points](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system) or any other factor mean that only large reductions can make a difference now and any lesser reduction will be pointless?

My intuition says that smaller cuts in emissions should still be preferred to no cuts at all, as I imagine that they would reduce the peak warming and/or delay the peak for longer and/or reduce the eventual recovery time. Perhaps not by as much as we might prefer, but still better than nothing. But perhaps my intuition is off.

**Tags:** climate-change, co2

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: So far the atmospheric CO2 is continuing to rise  at an increasing rate , so I wouldn't worry about it being reduced too rapidly. ( See Mauna Loa charts) .  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-06-20. Score: 9 | Accepted answer

Yes, because carbon emissions [are like a budget](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_budget). The Mercator Institute has one of the most commonly cited [analyses of our carbon budget](https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html):

> the atmosphere can absorb, calculated from end-2017, no more than 420 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 if we are to stay below the 1.5°C threshold. Annual emissions of CO2 – from burning fossil fuels, industrial processes and land-use change – are estimated to be around 42 Gt per year, the equivalent of 1,332 tonnes per second. With emissions at a constant level, the budget would be expected to be used up in less than seven years from now. The budget for staying below the 2°C threshold, for its part, of approximately 1,170 Gt, would be exhausted in about 25 years.

So, just like a household or business budget, small (but persistent) reductions in spending/emissions do make a difference in the long run.


---

