I can't be sure without a specific source to refute, but most estimates indicate it's pretty possible to avoid most of the damage by ending emissions. It'll st

I can't be sure without a specific source to refute, but most estimates indicate it's pretty possible to avoid most of the damage by ending emissions. It'll still take the better part of a century to naturally remove the CO2 we have already added, but that would be enough to stop massive climate upheaval. However its very apparent that there's no way in hell we'll actually stop emissions any time soon. I think that's what has been distorted into "it's too late". It'll take 30+ years at the most optimistic to see significant decreases in CO2 emission which is why some people advocate for geoengineering. Armchair skeptic: manually removing CO2 is the least dumb way of doing climate engineering. It's possible, it hasn't got nearly the terrible side effects of something like sulfur aerosols, and it can actually produce useable products (although the commercial viability of producing graphite and hydrocarbons from CO2 is... suspect). It's a nice dream though, and a fun counterargument to people saying we will always need coal and oil for steel and plastics. Ultimately of course the amount of carbon exceeds our need for oil/graphite/coke by a factor of several million, even over several millenia.