Is Net Zero Emissions an Impossible Goal?

[jmyrlefuller]

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/is-net-zero-emissions-an-impossible-goal

by John Baez
November 28, 2019

It depends on what we do. If our goal is to stop global warming, the best way is to cut carbon emissions now—to zero. The United Kingdom, Denmark, and Norway have passed laws requiring net zero emissions by 2050. Sweden is aiming at 2045. But the biggest emitters—China, the United States, and India—are dragging their heels. So to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels by 2100, it’s becoming more and more likely that we’ll need negative carbon emissions. That is, we’ll need to fix the air. We’ll need to suck more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere than we put in.

This may seem like a laughably ambitious goal. Can we actually do it? Or is it just a fantasy? I want to give you a sense of what it would take. But first, here’s one reason this matters. Most people don’t realize that large negative carbon emissions are assumed in many of the more optimistic climate scenarios. Even some policymakers tasked with dealing with climate change don’t know this.

So, how much negative carbon emissions do we need to stay below 2 degrees Celsius of warming, and how people are hoping to achieve them? Let’s dive in!

(excerpt)

[jmyrlefuller]

Here's the upshot:

Totaling up some of the options I’ve listed, we could draw down 1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide by planting trees, 1.5 billion by better forest management, 3 billion by better agricultural practices, and up to 5.2 billion by biofuels with carbon capture. This adds up to over 10 billion tonnes per year. It’s not nearly enough to cancel the 37 billion tonnes we’re dumping into the air each year now. (...) Even if we try, we are far from guaranteed to succeed.

[Free Vulcan]

Why does it even need to be a goal?

CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, etc do not cause 'global warming'. They are not 'greenhouse gases'.

Our atmosphere is not a greenhouse. The basic concept is bogus and not science.

[andy58-in-nh]

Why does it even need to be a goal?

CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, etc do not cause 'global warming'. They are not 'greenhouse gases'.

Our atmosphere is not a greenhouse. The basic concept is bogus and not science.

[Smokin Joe]

This all assumes that the planet's surface temperatures are at optimal, right now.
Who says a little warming is a bad thing?
Prove it.

There is a lot of land that falls into climate zones which essentially make agriculture impossible in the Northern Hemisphere that just might become food growing regions with a few degrees of warming. Why would that be a bad thing?

It seems to me no one knows just what the 'right' temperature is, but they are scared of losing money on their beach houses. That's not the rest of the planet's fault, nor is that our problem.

 If that is a driver, sell out and move inland. We have heard repeated assessments of how island nations were going to submerge, but it hasn't happened, so quit with the panic, already.

In the meantime, if the climate takes a turn for the worst (up or down), we'd better make sure we have the means to provide the energy and materials we will need to survive as a species, or we won't (survive, that is).

Urban heat islands will always be hotter than rural areas in the same region. Without enough energy, city people will die of the heat in some places, so unless the goal is to kill off people, and if they want to use electric cars, that energy has to come from somewhere.

Nothing about the whole green movement makes sense beyond not polluting the water or air (or soil) to the point we can't use it (again). 


Edited to add: I'm from North Dakota. I have no problem with a little warming.