3 ms·
"We need net zero by 2050" is completely arbitrary. New gas plants ARE helpful for cutting emissions if you compare it to the most likely alternative (eg coal)
by Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
"We need net zero by 2050" is completely arbitrary.
New gas plants ARE helpful for cutting emissions if you compare it to the most likely alternative (eg coal).
It's only NOT helpful if you compare it to utopia. If you could reliably assume that there will be net zero otherwise, then you wouldn't need to worry about these gas plants would you? They'd be shuttered soon anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
- DennisP 5y agoYes it is fairly arbitrary. With a bit of googling, looks like a fair number of climate scientists call it "too little too late"[1] and "a dangerous trap" on the grounds that we can't put things off that long[2]. Combined with the benefits of gas being much less than advertised due to leakage, it seems reckless to build new fossil plants of any sort, since we have alternative energy sources that don't emit at all. That's not utopian, it's just the rational direction to take right now. [1] https://www.ccag.earth/newsroom/net-zero-by-2050-is-too-little-too-late-world-leading-scientists-urge-global-leaders-to-focus-on-net-negative-strategies https://www.ccag.earth/newsroom/net-zero-by-2050-is-too-litt... [2] https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368 https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-ne...