12/8/15. 1.5˚C or 2˚C?

Recently at Cop21 international leaders have a new debate on their hands. There has been a push by the Pacific Islands and Australia to implement a goal to keep global temperature rise to 1.5˚C instead of the more agreed upon 2˚C. So some would ask, what is the huge difference? Well to the Pacific Islands and Australia there is much at risk here. The 0.5˚C difference could mean keeping their Island  and low lying coastal homes, or perhaps seeing them be flooded by the rising ocean. Holding global temperature rise is definitely an ambitious goal, so the question is, is it possible? The government of New Zealand doesn't think so. They say, "“I just don’t want to see the conference fall over on something, which at the end of the day is just an aspirational goal.” This is just one countries opinion however. In my personal opinion I think that 1.5˚C is a great place to aim, especially in regards to climate extremes. Limiting global temperature rise to to 1.5˚C would drastically slow the increasing rate as well as severity of climate change. This is important because some climate extremes are particularly dangerous the higher global temperature rises. A few of these climate extremes are drought, flooding, and heat waves. Many of these climate extremes would impact underdeveloped countries the most. This is a major problem because these countries have yet had the opportunity to develop any adaptation or defense mechanisms to protect themselves from these climate extremes. With this being said, it would prove to be catastrophic if they struck with a high severity in the near future. This is why developed countries should take the lead and aim for an ambitious goal to limit global temperature rise and protect those who can not protect themselves. So my conclusion bring me to the decision that more humans can limit global temperature rise, the more they will be able to limit the rate and harmfulness of climate extremes. 1.5˚C is the way to go if it possible.