3 ms·
This is good - but remember that "emissions" is already the first derivative of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. So what this article is saying is that the
by marvin 13y ago
This is good - but remember that "emissions" is already the first derivative of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. So what this article is saying is that the second derivative was ~35% lower than the average through the last decade.
What we need is to eventually have net zero emissions, after a period of having emissions low enough to be taken in by oceanic uptake and reforestation. So obviously we are far, far away from that goal. And there is very broad scientific consensus that we need to get there.
Negative second derivative is good, since it implies we won't have exponential runaway in CO2 concentration. But it is just the first step on the way there.
- jol 13y agoIf we are talking about changing something I the way people in the whole world acts, it takes a lot of time, the talks started long long ago, finally we see some result of this. There is a lot of "greener" technologies developed now and in past 2-3 years that soon will become mainstream, thus making us all closer to the goal
- marcosdumay 13y agoAre we seeing some results or is that just because fossil fuels are harder to get (read - more expensive) nowadays?
- pygy_ 13y agoKeep in mind that, to reduce greenhouse, plants worldwide would have to reduce a significant fraction of the net CO2 surplus emitted during the industrial era. Not a small task...