>Every .1% reduction counts. As an approach I don't agree - I think it's only keeping carbon in the ground that matters. Burning it 50 years later isn't a mean

>Every .1% reduction counts. As an approach I don't agree - I think it's only keeping carbon in the ground that matters. Burning it 50 years later isn't a meaningful improvement. If it's going to be kept in the ground, that's the place to start - the markets will do the rest. Efficiency first/alone (as policy) is flawed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox >That’s how we got here, ever so slightly increasing, and that’s how we must fix it We got here by non-renewable fuel extraction being profitable, not by variations in demand - that only affects the timescale of extraction. We didn't tax the polluters enough to break the economics driving climate change. We still don't.