5 ms·

>Though the world is on track to reach net-zero carbon emissions around 2062, I did not realize this. Does anyone know where this statement came from?

SamBorick 5y ago
I don't have access to this article so I'm not 100% sure, but at a guess they mean "many nations have made public claims that they plan to target reaching net-zero by around <some date>" To my knowledge, carbon emissions are still increasing every year, and increasing in their rate of increase every year. I would love to be wrong. This site doesn't include pandemic data: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
- scrooched_moose 5y ago
  Doesn't the plot on that page directly contradict that? It was effectively flat from 2012-2017, then small upticks in 2018 and 2019? The second derivative of CO2 seems to show a huge decrease in the last few years.
  - sgt101 5y ago
    There were similar "flattenings" in the early 80's If you had a plateau with twice the number of points (years) than any previous plateau then I would buy that something was going on. But sadly - we don't.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      I would also assume that there are still billions of people around the world aspiring to live lifestyles like people in the US/Western Europe, so absent the development of an energy source comparable to the convenience and low price of fossil fuels, any slack in demand from US/Western Europe will be picked up by the poorer billions.
    - scrooched_moose 5y ago
      I'm at least hopefully because this one appears longer (~9 years; if you count 2012-2019; most of the other drops were shorter and seem to be tied to major economic events - the 73 and 79 oil crises, fall of the Soviet Union in 91 and subsequent recession in Eastern Europe, and the great recession in 2009. Seeing an apparent flattening in a period of major economic growth is really encouraging.
  - loopz 5y ago
    Atmospheric CO2 growth rate over time https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html Year-by-year is alot of noise, but over decades we see mostly steady accelleration.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
That sounds insane to me. You'd need a large carbon sequestration program running, which means you'd need to be producing enough clean energy to supply all human needs and sequester the carbon. And no, trees will not cut it.
- throwaway1777 5y ago
  Sounds pessimistic to me. I think we can make it there earlier. Don’t underestimate technology, the solutions to carbon sequestration and clean energy are getting exponentially better each year.
  - jfk13 5y ago
    > exponentially better each year I'd love to see sources supporting that; it sounds a lot more optimistic than I would expect.
    - epistasis 5y ago
      Ramenz Naam has been showing this for years: https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-cheap-2020/ https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-c... There are identical stories to write about onshore wind, offshore wind, and lithium ion batteries. This summer has seen a huge number of new storage chemistries announced from startups with skin in the game and experienced management that will close the gap for longer term storage. The most optimistic prediction for renewables were too pessimistic. It's likely that we are still in the same situation today, and not nearly enough people are predicting the future accurately by short-changing new tech. There probably aren't too many people on HN these days that remember computer tech in the 80s and 90s, but it had far fewer doubters, and didn't have an industry dedicated to creating a propaganda cloud about how awful computers are. And still, the internet and computers are far more advanced and penetrant into everyday life in ways almost nobody anticipated. The renewables revolution will likely be as big. We will have more cheaper energy accessible to us than ever before. This may be enough to jump to a new stage of technological development.
- 5y ago
the8472 5y ago
It is a piece of speculative fiction after all.
ant6n 5y ago
The article is a what-if senario for the year 2041. The carbon neutral by 2062 statement is part of the what-if Szenario.
shoe1 5y ago
This piece is written as if it's covering the event in 2041 as it unfolds, so I read that as just a fictional projection based on what this writer thinks could be in the cards. This tracks with the general tone I get from the Economist's (excellent) climate coverage: unconvinced we'll get where we need to be quickly enough to achieve the best case climate scenarios, but optimistic that we will eventually hit more of a medium-case scenario, and therefore may need some interim solutions (they often allude to geo-engineering) to bridge that gap.
gmuslera 5y ago
Most countries had pledged to reach net zero by 2050, China at least said to reach net zero by 2060, with few exceptions. Of course, it must be achieved. But net-zero carbon emissions means that till that year, the GHG will keep accumulating, the carbon cycle is slow enough to not significantly reduce the amount that you have in the atmosphere for decades. So the problem won't be solved that year, nor 10 years after that goal is achieved, but when GHG are finally below of pre-industrial levels (I don't know, near half of what is it now) so we lose more heat than what we keep. All the way till that point, the global yearly average temperature should be rising. And extreme weather events will continue to pile up. And, of course, net zero doesn't take into account the positive feedback loops that either emit more GHG or rise global temperature. I feel a bit overoptimistic that article. Or that they try to push that solution tried by Hyderabad as a magic wand (or a cash cow).
- orwin 5y ago
  So, the effect of all excess CO2 put in the atmosphere in 2050 will have an impact between 2065 and 2070 (roughly). The atmospheric CO2 "half life" is more than a 100 year. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-...
- zarzavat 5y ago
  Pledges for things that will happen after a politician dies are even more meaningless than pledges made before an election. Zero value should be attached to them. The only thing that matters are actions that are happening now which is... not very much.
  - gmuslera 5y ago
    It is what we have. A president could discard all pledges as Trump demonstrated during his mandate. Maybe different kinds of governments, with less variation of ruling parties (China, Russia) or broad agreements in their political systems (EU?) may keep their promises in this topic.

SamBorick 5y ago

I don't have access to this article so I'm not 100% sure, but at a guess they mean "many nations have made public claims that they plan to target reaching net-zero by around <some date>" To my knowledge, carbon emissions are still increasing every year, and increasing in their rate of increase every year. I would love to be wrong. This site doesn't include pandemic data: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

scrooched_moose 5y ago
Doesn't the plot on that page directly contradict that? It was effectively flat from 2012-2017, then small upticks in 2018 and 2019? The second derivative of CO2 seems to show a huge decrease in the last few years.
- sgt101 5y ago
  There were similar "flattenings" in the early 80's If you had a plateau with twice the number of points (years) than any previous plateau then I would buy that something was going on. But sadly - we don't.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I would also assume that there are still billions of people around the world aspiring to live lifestyles like people in the US/Western Europe, so absent the development of an energy source comparable to the convenience and low price of fossil fuels, any slack in demand from US/Western Europe will be picked up by the poorer billions.
  - scrooched_moose 5y ago
    I'm at least hopefully because this one appears longer (~9 years; if you count 2012-2019; most of the other drops were shorter and seem to be tied to major economic events - the 73 and 79 oil crises, fall of the Soviet Union in 91 and subsequent recession in Eastern Europe, and the great recession in 2009. Seeing an apparent flattening in a period of major economic growth is really encouraging.
- loopz 5y ago
  Atmospheric CO2 growth rate over time https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html Year-by-year is alot of noise, but over decades we see mostly steady accelleration.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

That sounds insane to me. You'd need a large carbon sequestration program running, which means you'd need to be producing enough clean energy to supply all human needs and sequester the carbon. And no, trees will not cut it.

throwaway1777 5y ago
Sounds pessimistic to me. I think we can make it there earlier. Don’t underestimate technology, the solutions to carbon sequestration and clean energy are getting exponentially better each year.
- jfk13 5y ago
  > exponentially better each year I'd love to see sources supporting that; it sounds a lot more optimistic than I would expect.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    Ramenz Naam has been showing this for years: https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-cheap-2020/ https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-c... There are identical stories to write about onshore wind, offshore wind, and lithium ion batteries. This summer has seen a huge number of new storage chemistries announced from startups with skin in the game and experienced management that will close the gap for longer term storage. The most optimistic prediction for renewables were too pessimistic. It's likely that we are still in the same situation today, and not nearly enough people are predicting the future accurately by short-changing new tech. There probably aren't too many people on HN these days that remember computer tech in the 80s and 90s, but it had far fewer doubters, and didn't have an industry dedicated to creating a propaganda cloud about how awful computers are. And still, the internet and computers are far more advanced and penetrant into everyday life in ways almost nobody anticipated. The renewables revolution will likely be as big. We will have more cheaper energy accessible to us than ever before. This may be enough to jump to a new stage of technological development.
5y ago

the8472 5y ago

It is a piece of speculative fiction after all.

ant6n 5y ago

The article is a what-if senario for the year 2041. The carbon neutral by 2062 statement is part of the what-if Szenario.

shoe1 5y ago

This piece is written as if it's covering the event in 2041 as it unfolds, so I read that as just a fictional projection based on what this writer thinks could be in the cards. This tracks with the general tone I get from the Economist's (excellent) climate coverage: unconvinced we'll get where we need to be quickly enough to achieve the best case climate scenarios, but optimistic that we will eventually hit more of a medium-case scenario, and therefore may need some interim solutions (they often allude to geo-engineering) to bridge that gap.

gmuslera 5y ago

Most countries had pledged to reach net zero by 2050, China at least said to reach net zero by 2060, with few exceptions. Of course, it must be achieved. But net-zero carbon emissions means that till that year, the GHG will keep accumulating, the carbon cycle is slow enough to not significantly reduce the amount that you have in the atmosphere for decades. So the problem won't be solved that year, nor 10 years after that goal is achieved, but when GHG are finally below of pre-industrial levels (I don't know, near half of what is it now) so we lose more heat than what we keep. All the way till that point, the global yearly average temperature should be rising. And extreme weather events will continue to pile up. And, of course, net zero doesn't take into account the positive feedback loops that either emit more GHG or rise global temperature. I feel a bit overoptimistic that article. Or that they try to push that solution tried by Hyderabad as a magic wand (or a cash cow).

orwin 5y ago
So, the effect of all excess CO2 put in the atmosphere in 2050 will have an impact between 2065 and 2070 (roughly). The atmospheric CO2 "half life" is more than a 100 year. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-...
zarzavat 5y ago
Pledges for things that will happen after a politician dies are even more meaningless than pledges made before an election. Zero value should be attached to them. The only thing that matters are actions that are happening now which is... not very much.
- gmuslera 5y ago
  It is what we have. A president could discard all pledges as Trump demonstrated during his mandate. Maybe different kinds of governments, with less variation of ruling parties (China, Russia) or broad agreements in their political systems (EU?) may keep their promises in this topic.