3 ms·
Let's assume that for a moment all their numbers are correct (it's a huge assumption) and let's also assume that they will all be achieved (cough). Their numbe
by mchannon 9y ago
Let's assume that for a moment all their numbers are correct (it's a huge assumption) and let's also assume that they will all be achieved (cough).
Their numbers add up to approximately 100% of 2017 annual fossil fuel emissions.
That means that all of the excess CO2 currently in the atmosphere is beyond the reach of the combined 80 solutions they propose. Greenhouse gas production rates continue to increase (Earth has plenty of semi-natural processes of its own that are only starting to be triggered). You can't double-count these 80 solutions, so they're inadequate to even stop the growth.
"drawdown" seems a misnomer. There's no reversal here, only a slowdown.
This is the most challenging engineering problem ever to confront mankind, and we haven't risen as a species to meet it.
Now, time to get back to the latest ICO, because some things are important.
- spenrose 9y ago"Let's assume that for a moment all their numbers are correct (it's a huge assumption)" The entire framing of their approach is to only consider peer-reviewed literature -- holding themselves to the highest standard we have, the one most free of "assumption." It is rhetorically deceptive to open by characterizing them as making assumptions.
- freshhawk 9y agoOnly if you discount the evidence that we are almost always optimistic about these things at this stage of the research. Anyone good at doing high level policy accounts for the fact that you always need a lot of margin for optimistic error when combining multiple solutions.
- spenrose 9y agoCitation please. Bonus points for noting the irony that you are criticizing an impeccably supported work with sweeping (but unsupported) assertions.