4 ms·

You're right. Super-pollutants like methane, tropospheric ozone, black carbon, and hydrofluorocarbon have up to 2,000 times the warming potential of carbon over

You're right. Super-pollutants like methane, tropospheric ozone, black carbon, and hydrofluorocarbon have up to 2,000 times the warming potential of carbon over a 100 year time scale.[264], [265] Advanced economies can investigate good mitigation strategies and pay emerging economies to phase them out as soon as possible. However, the overall funding gap is likely much lower (perhaps in the hundreds of millions) than for clean energy R&D (which is in the tens of billions) and so diminishing returns will set in earlier. Thus, while investing in this is quite cost-effective, there is an upper bound on the benefits (low benefit-costs). citations here: https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/ https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/

strainer 7y ago
Here is the IPCCs detail of ghg gas emissions [1] The gross global warming effect of pollutants that you are mentioning is low compared to CO2. Methane emissions amount to around 16% of CO2(e) emissions, and NOx emissions amount to around half of methanes. Refrigerants and others about 2% so far, though they could get worse if not better controlled (which seems to be drawdowns case). The IPCC highlights CO2 because it is the main problem which has to be dealt with. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SPM.02_rev1-01.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SPM.02_rev1-...