Climate change policies

[PTK]

This just doesn't make scientific sense, sorry. Net zero is the culmination of a process. The process involves cutting emissions. The idea is we get to a point where the level of carbon dioxide is no longer increasing.

There are ways of reducing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere such as tree planting and more experimental methods of carbon removal. But there is no point doing this unless you are also cutting emissions as rapidly as possible.

I'm not sure what you're actually arguing for.

What doesn't make scientific sense?
Net Zero is promoted as though it is the solution, but it is not. It should not at all be an end point. We need to argue for going net negative.

 

[StoneRoad]

What doesn't make scientific sense?
Net Zero is promoted as though it is the solution, but it is not. It should not at all be an end point. We need to argue for going net negative.

Yes, Net Negative is required in the longer term - but going via Net Zero is a suitable stage in the process.
But China and India [to give just two examples] are still increasing emissions at this time.
Note that there was a noticeable decrease in smog / emissions during the covid lockdowns - so reductions can be achieved, when the will / regulation is there.

Trees and Peat bogs are both important carbon stores, but re-foresting and un-draining areas are slow processes.