<
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/10/net-zero-2050-deadly-procrastination-fossil-fuels>
"The world has by and large adopted “net zero by 2050” as its de facto climate
goal, but two fatal flaws hide in plain sight within those 16 characters. One
is “net zero.” The other is “by 2050”.
These two flaws provide cover for big oil and politicians who wish to preserve
the status quo. Together they comprise a deadly prescription for inaction and
catastrophically high levels of irreversible climate and ecological breakdown.
First, consider “by 2050”. This deadline feels comfortably far away,
encouraging further climate procrastination. Who feels urgency over a deadline
in 2050? This is convenient for the world’s elected leaders, who typically have
term limits of between three and five years, less so for anyone who needs a
livable planet.
Pathways for achieving net zero by 2050 – meaning that in 2050 any carbon
emissions would be balanced by CO2 withdrawn through natural means, like
forests, and through hypothetical carbon-trapping technology – are designed to
give roughly even odds for keeping global heating below 1.5C. But it’s now
apparent that even the current 1.1C of global heating is not a “safe” level.
Climate catastrophes are arriving with a frequency and ferocity that have
shocked climate scientists. The fact that climate models failed to predict the
intensity of the summer’s heatwaves and flooding suggests that severe impacts
will come sooner than previously thought. Madagascar is on the brink of the
first climate famine, and developments such as multi-regional crop losses and
climate warfare even before reaching 1.5C should no longer be ruled out.
Meanwhile, “net zero” is a phrase that represents magical thinking rooted in
our society’s technology fetish. Just presuppose enough hypothetical carbon
capture and you can pencil out a plan for meeting any climate goal, even while
allowing the fossil fuel industry to keep growing. While there may be useful
negative-emissions strategies such as reforestation and conservation
agriculture, their carbon capture potential is small compared with cumulative
fossil fuel carbon emissions, and their effects may not be permanent.
Policymakers are betting the future of life on Earth that someone will invent
some kind of whiz-bang tech to draw down CO2 at a massive scale."
Via Robert Sanscartier.
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
