2 ms·
Those were just specific substances for which they had a replacement at hand (and those HCFC and HFC replacements? Turns out they're not so good for environment
by coldtea 3y ago
Those were just specific substances for which they had a replacement at hand (and those HCFC and HFC replacements? Turns out they're not so good for environment either, and they had to start restricting those too, though they're still going strong).
Not for something general, like overall polution, of which there's 0 chance to reduce to 90%, or even 50% by 2040.
Let's wait and see who called it.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago50% is trivial. It's already down 33% from 2012. The top three air pollution sources are electricity generation, heating and transport. There are zero emission replacements at hand for all 3, all being actively deployed.
- anovikov 3y agoAnd pollution from electricity generation are 46% down in only 7 years, 2016-2023.
- anovikov 3y agoReduction by 55% from 1990 levels (with no flimsy items counted into this such as sequestration) by 2030 is now seen as below-inertial scenario: emissions will be lower even if nothing else is done. We are already about 35% under 1990 levels. So you are certainly wrong on that one.