ONLY ZERO CARBON ONLY ZERO CARBON ONLY ZERO CARBON ON LY ZERO CARBON ONLY ZERO CARBON ONLY ZERO
The published science is in agreement on what it takes to stabilize atmospheric CO2 long term. It is the virtually total cessation of all human carbon emissions. Virtual zero is the closest we can get to zero and will be about a 90% reduction of today's emissions. But that means stopping emissions.
To get to zero emissions in addition to that the research agrees that the extraction of carbon dioxide direct from the air is a must. The scientists call this 'negative carbon emissions' or 'artificial carbon sinks'. The published science on this is in agreement that the technology is available for development now to take carbon out of the air. It is not being developed because of the insane economics.
These are the two fundamental (should be obvious) essentials of global climate change mitigation and our survival. Stop putting carbon into the air and start taking carbon out of the air. We can do both by a number of ways.
Tragically the environmental movement is opposed to the very idea of extracting carbon direct from the air on the basis its geo-engineering or it will make individual behavior change less likely. The fact of the science is that zero carbon must include the capacity for negative carbon.
It was established by the science many years ago that atmospheric CO2 concentration could not fall unless CO2 emissions stopped. The latest IPCC assessment said that the long term atmospheric CO2 could not be stabilized without stopping emissions.
It has been known for may years that all the world's energy needs can be met by zero carbon (alternate renewable) energies. In fact zero carbon energy potential is many times than all the fossil fuels being burned.
1. Stop putting carbon
into the atmosphere.
2. Start taking carbon
out of the atmosphere.
Nature Journal October 2009 Climate Cruch Sucking It Up. www.nature.com/news/2009/090429/full/4581094a.htmlCaution is warranted in taking. values as targets for decision-making.Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently at 390 p.p.m., and even if we could put an end to our emissions now, a sizable fraction of CO2 would remain in the atmosphere for millennia (Nat. Rep. Clim. Change 2, 156–158; 2008). Unless we find a way of sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere (Science 325, 1654–1655; 2009), returning to 350 p.p.m. within a time-frame that is relevant to decision-makers will be well high impossible.Targets can all too easily be used to justify continued environmental degradation on the basis that it is within an acceptable range (Nature 461, 447–448; 2009). That's especially true of long-term goals, whose chances of being met can't be measured by present-day behaviour.
technology.CO2 air extraction
To have any chance of stopping global warming from increasing nations must plan to stop the emissions of all long lasting (in the atmospshere) greenhouse gases. This is not impossible, it does not mean the end of civilization (global climate change does). That's because it is just a matter of switching technologies and chemicals to zero carbon and non toxic alternatives that exist already.
We are told that to reduce emissions would be very costly. This is the biggest climate change lie out there and most people have fallen for it.
It would not cost anything. The truth is developing any new technology is a huge economic boost.
The global zero carbon development and re-development would be the greatest economic and employment boost ever.
There is in addition a huge immediate cost saving from stopping the toxic air and water pollution of fossil fuels. The cost to our health and from health treatment is enormous.
Amongst scientists publicly recommending a zero carbon response to the public are Bill Hare and Hans Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Climate Institute (German). They are both top longstanding climate change experts. (See report and the 1C graph below and click image for the World watch State of the World 2009 on climate change by Bill Hare). Please note anything higher than 1C is not safe and is disastrous for billions of the most climate change vulnerable with respect to terrible losses of their water food and health.
Click on Subsidies above for a PDF that shows the fossil fuel industry is getting trillions of dollars in subsidies world wide and we are doing next to nothing about it.
Decarbonisation to any extent all meaning is totally impossible without stopping all fossil fuel subsidies.
For the zero carbon decarbonisation imperative the direct fossil fuel subsidies which are hundreds of billions of dollars a year globally must be transferred to the clean zero carbon industries.
This is the single biggest and best solution but is the missing solution.
Zero Carbon Science to Zero Carbon Response
Decarbonisation is generally understood today to mean reducing fossil fuel energy intensity, that is burning fossil fuels more efficiently which is assumed to be on the way to a 'low' carbon economy.
This is absolutely not what decarbonization is according to the climate system science- that demands zero carbon emissions.
Using energy more efficiently is most important, but we have to totally convert our energy supply so that we don't burn any fossil fuels for energy.
In fact a policy of burning fossil fuels more efficiently but not based on replacing all fossil fuel energy allows the continued globalization of fossil fuel energy and hence the continued escalation of carbon emissions.
Click here: for the various methods to stop adding carbon and start subtracting carbon. (some illustrated in the image.)
Solar photovoltaic can provide 100%
world energy needs with less than 1% world land WWF 2013