anlomedadJoeri Rogelj, the god of #CO2budget, about his team's new study on estimating future emissions from current policies, plans, and "net zero" pledges: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-credible-climate-pledges-mean-for-future-global-warming/
Devastating to me was the chart below. These are GHG estimated from "net zero" policies/plans/pledges that came after #Greta happened, so they're made with increased climate-awareness. And look, how positive emissions continue – even after 2100!
The yellow, least credible pathway in the study reduces GHG emissions from as late as 2032 to 2045, then gradually peters out to reach "net zero" by year 2095 !
Red and dark orange never reach "net zero" but combined across all governments whose policies entered the study, they plan to emit 18 to 22 Gt of greenhouse gases per year in year 2100.
I think it's wise to not stay the shellshocked victim of this folly any longer. But to accept that psychol.dynamics in politics and society won't implement required changes as early as necessary to keep within safe operating space. -50% by 2030 is now pure fantasy.
Devastating to me was the chart below. These are GHG estimated from "net zero" policies/plans/pledges that came after #Greta happened, so they're made with increased climate-awareness. And look, how positive emissions continue – even after 2100!
The yellow, least credible pathway in the study reduces GHG emissions from as late as 2032 to 2045, then gradually peters out to reach "net zero" by year 2095 !
Red and dark orange never reach "net zero" but combined across all governments whose policies entered the study, they plan to emit 18 to 22 Gt of greenhouse gases per year in year 2100.
I think it's wise to not stay the shellshocked victim of this folly any longer. But to accept that psychol.dynamics in politics and society won't implement required changes as early as necessary to keep within safe operating space. -50% by 2030 is now pure fantasy.
