Thanks. Yes, the marginal damage of missing the 3°C threshold by 0.1°C is higher than the marginal damage of missing the 1.5°C threshold by the same amount - and this gap is widening if we include tipping points. 

However, benefits are cumulative - i.e. staying below e.g., 2°C reduces the risk of damages and tipping elements at that temperature threshold and those of higher temperatures. A ton of CO2 we avoid today contributes to both goals. So even in terms of relative importance, I would still disagree. 

Thank you for the article and the comments! While I agree with the finding that additional warming  of tipping points seems limited in this century based on the current scientific understanding, I'd be  quite hesitant to conclude that avoiding warming >3°C only is most important. 

Even without strong direct, near- to medium-term impacts on global warming, tipping elements will have significant (regional) implications on ecosystems, human welfare etc. (Or, as Wang et al 2023 put it: "Overall, even considering remaining scientific uncertainties, tipping elements will influence future climate change and may involve major impacts on ecosystems, climate patterns, and the carbon cycle starting later this century. Aggressive efforts to stabilize climate change could significantly reduce such impacts.")

In combination with the significant remaining uncertainty around tipping elements / tipping points, applying the precautionary principle and avoiding as much warming as possible appear to be good strategies, as also called for by many authors of the underlying studies/papers themselves.