Quote:
Originally Posted by flamesfever
Personally I think "net zero by 2050" is a pipe dream. However, if it serves to speed up the transition away from the burning of fossil fuels, then I guess it will have served its purpose.
Things like the tripling of nuclear energy, the displacement of coal by natural gas, carbon capture, renewables, thermal energy, etc. all make sense to me. However, I believe they will have to be carefully transitioned in order to avoid price spikes in the fossil fuels, and to cause undue hardship, especially to the poorer people on the planet.
I also think better forestry management, and tree planting, should play an important part in removing CO2 from the air. Forests provide a "carbon sink" that absorbs a net 7.6 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, more carbon than the United States emits annually.
|
As Bill Gates once said, people often vastly overestimate what they can do in a year, and vastly underestimate what they can do in a decade. Net Zero by 2050 is definitely possible. Very difficult, but definitely possible. Limiting warming by 1.5° is all but a fait accompli, but 2° could still be met