Oh sorry I left out half the argument. The other half is the rapidly progressing cost curve of solar. Ten years ago I thought that: * We wouldn’t be able to g

Oh sorry I left out half the argument. The other half is the rapidly progressing cost curve of solar. Ten years ago I thought that: * We wouldn’t be able to get renewae costs down fast enough * Even if we did, we’d have emitted so much that the earth’s own systems would keep things going unless we got to zero I didn’t see a realistic way out. Default dead, and almost certainly just dead. But since then the cost curve on renewables has come down much faster than predicted. And further we are starting to bring the cost curve down on carbon extraction. You’re right we need to get to zero. And I don’t mean to take that as a given. But I focussed on extraction because without that we’re still doomed even if we get to zero. But the progress so far has come despite an ineffectual political response and a general lack of urgency from civil society. But both are turning around a bit, with carbon taxes, the stripe initiative, etc. So I think we may be able to move even faster on the cost curves. Hence why I think we have moved from “basically no chance” to “some chance”. And that’s very optimistic to me, because humanity is pretty good at doing stuff if it focusses and success is actually possible rather than impossible. I think the more apt cancer analogy is surgery:chemo = emissions halting:carbon removal You need the first part, as you say. But without the second part you still die in the end.