The Forum > Article Comments > May we discuss 'net zero' 2050? > Comments
May we discuss 'net zero' 2050? : Comments
By Stephen Saunders, published 27/3/2020Seventy nations have signed up, for net zero emissions 2050. Before COVID-19 became the only topic, Australia buzzed with it. But what does it mean?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
https://energycentral.com/c/cp/california%E2%80%99s-cap-and-trade-program-may-vastly-overestimate-emissions-cuts
In FY 2019 land use contributed about -20 Mt to get to the net figure of + 532 Mt CO2e. Then some say summer fires added about 400 Mt almost doubling annual CO2. We're assured the fires avoided the 'carbon farms' paid under the Emissions Reduction Fund.
In Garnaut's happy world trees don't succumb to fire, dieback or drought. Yet key firefighters are saying we may be better off with fewer trees not more. Chemical carbon capture cannot possibly make enough difference, for example Gorgon failing so far in its promise to inject 120 Mt CO2 below Barrow Island WA. Then there's 'international permits' whereby basket weaving in the UKkraine or whatever will cancel out Australia's coal emissions. Articles like this need to keep pointing out it is largely fraud.