Comments on Pep Canadell "The widening gap between present emissions and the two-degree target", 4/12/2012, https://theconversation.edu.au/the-widening-gap-between-present-emissions-and-the-two-degree-target-11101
The author states "Perhaps the most immediate critical challenge to meet the 2°C target is the need to curb global fossil fuel emissions within the next ten years. This would require annual emission mitigation rates to around 3%. Some integrated assessment models show that this is possible globally without causing economic damage."
I would argue that those so called integarted assessment models are clearly unrealistic, given the annual growth in emissions over the past decade is 3% and to turn that into a reduction of 3% is a clearly acdemic excercise!
What it means is it is unrealistic and impossible to achieve the 2 degree limit (assuming the modellings for that 2 degree limits are correct) and the world has to learn to adapt to a warmer world more than 2 degree.
The first realistic step is to reduce the growth in emission to 0 for normal world economic conditions. After achieving that target, then the next step is to reduce emmissions.
The current difficulties in reaching an international binding agreement can only be overcome if a deal is fair and effective that requires per capita emissions have to be used as the basis for a deal. Failing to do that is unlikely to advance the cause very far.
A per capita deal is not aimed at achieving equal per capita consumption or emissions, it is to use per capita emissions as a key variable in determining which countries should pay to the international community and by how much for each and which countries should be paid and by how much for each.
This approach will focus on the current consumptions/emissions and will not look back at histories of emissions.
It should be based on the user pay concept on a global scale.