Two new studies conclude that stabilizing long-term climate risks will require sustained net-negative carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions for centuries. Approaching the problem from distinct perspectives—legal and technological feasibility on the one hand, and economic optimization under uncertainty on the other—the research converges on a consistent message: reaching net zero is not enough.
  • fake_meows@sopuli.xyz
    2·
    13 days ago

    I hate to say this, but this has already been obvious.

    I think a lot of pro-climate environmentalists originally had a two step program:

    1. Slow down the rate of new pollution so that secondary feedbacks don’t kick into gear.

    2. Before the slow moving changes kick in, REVERSE climate forcing and get rid of the CO2

    After decades, themessaging got repeated and amplified and eventually the popular understanding turned into this:

    1. We need to get down to net zero emissions eventually.

    2. Celebrate victory, that’s everything.

    This second thing mistakes the target of zero emissions as the end goal and lost the greater context. Bafflingly, this is by and large the mainstream environmentalist view and its just completely unsupported by any real science.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. We have like 5 years left to start reversing forcing and obviously climate causing pollution is still increasing at an annual rate. And we have to actually go BELOW the original CO2 level to get climate to respond, because the system has hysteresis. Like there is a huge gulf in understanding that has opened up.

    A lot of environmentalists believe that we already have all the technical solutions and if only billionaires, oil companies and governments would act, we could solve this calamity. Super naive.

    To believe that, you have to believe plan #2 is real. If you believe we need to do plan #1, its extremely apparent we have NO FREAKING CLUE how to fix the climate problem. Things are not under control and humans are not what’s preventing this from happening, we have a fundamental failure in our ability to respond in any meaningful way. We are not going to get anywhere without first contending with a realistic solution space that’s at the true scale of this issue.

    This division in peoples’ understanding makes half the environmentalists sound like climate deniers. People who don’t thinks EVs and solar panels add up to a plan #1 solution are ignored by the mainstream view that #2 is what we are all supposed to be talking about.

    Science education is a huge part of the problem, a lot of people are just kind of scientifically illiterate…

    I should now add this: A lot of scientists are now saying this:

    Because we failed so far, we should do this:

    1. Stop CO2, get to net zero.
    2. Do geo- engineering to temporarily pause secondary feedbacks so that we have more time
    3. Remove carbon from the atmosphere.

    ^ the geoengineering allows the carbon removal to happen before the earth systems start moving, so that the amount of carbon you need to remove doesn’t increase too much…

    ( I fully expect this to morph into the idea that geoengineering is a full solution and will make a livable climate and that we don’t need to go further and reduce carbon. )

    AGAIN, removal of the carbon is what needs to happen to make a survivable future. But try stating this in environment circles and you’ll be ignored and criticized…it’s just politically unpalatable.