• Risk@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well yes, but isn’t the point to use progressively less fossil fuels - net zero implies we get to a point where we stop making things worse.

    From there, then we can start making things better.

    • Rhaedas@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Net zero is simply where the emissions we still are emitting are being countered by “something” to have a flatline of human sourced emissions total. Likely the same magic that the IPCC is still counting on, carbon removal tech. It’s almost 2024 now and we’re starting to see the accumulation of the damage we’ve done, mainly because things like the oceans have hidden it for so long and are now failing. Time is up.

      We absolutely need to reduce fossil fuel use NOW, and as much as possible each year. The damage that will do to our society might be a price no one is willing to pay though, we’re very heavily dependent on it, more and more each year. Just a linear decrease means in five years we better be down to 30 gigatons annual emissions, and five more down to 20 gigatons. There isn’t a way to do that and keep our modern society (and the up and coming third world industrial countries).

      Discussing a Catch-22 situation can become heated, because people don’t want the problems pointed out to them without some answers to consider. I’m sorry I don’t have any to give. Any that I’ve ever seen or been presented with are always false hopes, it’s a big mess we humans have created.