Who's looking at net zero emission? Let's get back to the Paris agreement targets. The Obama administration enacted the Clean Power Plan [1], with the main aim

Who's looking at net zero emission? Let's get back to the Paris agreement targets. The Obama administration enacted the Clean Power Plan [1], with the main aim of having the 2030 emissions 32% below the 2005 levels. The last official numbers from the EIA [2] show a level in 2017 that is 14% below the 2005 level. The EIA does not have final 2018 numbers yet, but it project an uptick in emissions, followed by a decrease in 2019 and 2020, so in 2020 we'll be roughly at the same level of 14% below 2005. That leaves 18% reduction to be achieved in 10 years (after 14% in 15). Very difficult, but not impossible. It obviously depends on who's in the White House, but not exclusively. The bad news is that the EIA projects that the US emissions will remain at the roughly the current levels until 2050. What can be done? Obviously, more renewables are a potential answer; the EIA already included them in the projection, assuming current laws and government incentives, and reasonable technological advances. If we want more renewables, we probably need a bit more government subsidies, or maybe a bit of help from Musk. Nuclear is another option. I'm personally very pro-nuclear, but I'm aware of the general reservations, so I'm not holding my breath. Replacement of coal power plants with natural gas achieves substantial emissions reductions, but this was taken into account by the EIA . Massive changes in automotive fleet from gas-powered to electric were not projected by the EIA ([4], p. 25: "petroleum remains the dominant fuel used in vehicles throughout the projection period"). But here's the biggest way you can make a difference. Just say "Yes". Yes as in "Yes in my Backyard". Yes as in the opposite of "Not in my Backyard". If more building is allowed in the main metropolitan areas in the US, then tens of millions of people would move from suburbs to the densely populated cities like NYC or SF. Population density means less transportation for lots of goods filling the malls, less construction for streets, better building insulation, more people biking to work or using public transportation, fewer school buses, I can go on and on. The best part is that this would not involve a sacrifice to the economic growth. This would go hand in hand with increased economic growth. How many startups are not viable in SF because the rent is so damn high? Who would not benefit? People who expect that buying a house means the right for future capital appreciation without moving a finger. Some would even go as far as characterizing these people as rent extractors. Oh, and I think we should also desalinate more water and plant more trees. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Power_Plan#Aims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Power_Plan#Aims [2] https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/ https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/ [3] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38773 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38773 [4] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/aeo2019.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/aeo2019.pdf