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
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Perhaps you could just stop digging!
The problem is so big that even removing all those who care about it from the planet wouldn't be sufficient to solve it.
COVID19 is of course a more urgent problem, so it goes without saying that addressing it should take priority. But that doesn't mean we should keep silent on the other problems we have. It's not as if doing so will make the coronavirus go away any more quickly!
_________________________________________________________________________________
Alison Jane,
I did no such thing - I merely raised the question as a possible explanation of your extremely unscientific approach to everything. Though your lying about your credentials would be the simplest explanation, your senility would be a close second.
ISTR I mentioned on the other thread that denialists had trouble understanding that raising questions didn't mean the answers were always what the questioner thought.
_________________________________________________________________________________
individual
Yes it's possible. And it certainly doesn't need to be recalculated - zero remains the same whatever you divide it by. Admittedly a higher population does make it more difficult to achieve - but not much more difficult.
The planet's ability to absorb CO2 is not a constant; it's something we can increase. There are rocks that can react with it, and plants can absorb it (though we do have to be careful to ensure they don't just go up in smoke afterwards). For the most part the easiest way is to switch from processes that emit CO2 to ones that don't - but of course that's not always possible for everything.