4 ms·
I completely agree that is doable, and indeed profitable for many of us, but it is only a partial solution. That same report says: a 90 percent carbon-free el
by frabbit 6y ago
I completely agree that is doable, and indeed profitable for many of us, but it is only a partial solution.
That same report says:
a 90 percent carbon-free electric generation sector by 2035, which would reduce economy-wide emissions 27 percent.
Yet the IPCC targets are 43% globally by 2050, unless we believe that there is going to be some currently non-existent technology introduced then something needs to be done to close that gap...reduction seems obvious:
Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.
Although that relates 2010 emissions to 2030 I think the CO2 emissions are actually higher now:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#how-have-global-co2-emissions-changed-over-time https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- frabbit 6y agoCORRECTION: USA 2010 emissions were 5.9 million metric tonnes and dropped to 5.1 in 2019 according to: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...
- CuriousSkeptic 6y agoI’ve been watching some videos from https://paulbeckwith.net/ https://paulbeckwith.net/ IIRC he was reviewing some paper a while back about the disappearing arctic ice that wasn’t included in the IPCC models. Basically claiming that the target dates they mention should in fact come a few decades earlier. So if things need to happen by 2050, it could be more like by 2035