Global Heating Will Hit At Least 1.8C, UN Warns, and There Are 'No Good Outcomes' (theguardian.com) 208
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Global heating will reach at least 1.8C under even the most optimistic future, well beyond the Paris agreement goal of 1.5C, according to a UN report that warns every fraction of temperature rise intensifies destructive extreme weather, glacier melt, ecosystem loss, and island and coastal city submersion. The report by the Nairobi-based UN Environment Program confirmed overshooting the 1.5C goal inscribed in the landmark Paris agreement of 2015 was now "unavoidable" and, despite some progress in addressing the human-caused climate crisis driven by burning fossil fuels, likely in the next few years. It said: "There are no good outcomes above 1.5C."
Heating of up to 3C above preindustrial levels could lead to glaciers losing more than a quarter of their mass by 2100, raising sea levels by up to 13cm. Global food production could decline by up to 14% by 2050 if there are not effective strategies to adapt. Human health, water supplies, nature, cities, infrastructure and economies could all be severely damaged. Some losses would be irreversible. Many communities may have to relocate or change their livelihoods. The report said the best hope for humanity to limit damage was to adopt an "overshoot, peak and decline" pathway that required immediate and sustained greenhouse gas emissions cuts combined with steps to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
It described the goal of net zero emissions -- increasingly politically contentious in some countries -- as "an essential milestone that cannot be skipped" and stressed carbon dioxide removal through steps such as establishing vast new forests must occur alongside, not as an alternative to, deep cuts in fossil pollution. Crucially, the authors of the report, titled Limiting Overshoot, said the average global temperature could be returned to 1.5C this century only if heating stayed below about 1.8C. They warned nature's capacity to store carbon was uncertain and would shrink the more the planet heats. [...] The report's authors cited earlier work that found limiting heating to about 1.8C required global emissions to be halved by 2035. They said existing national policies were projected to lead to at least 2.3C heating, but it would still be possible to limit stay below 2C if countries delivered on net zero emissions commitments by mid-century.
Heating of up to 3C above preindustrial levels could lead to glaciers losing more than a quarter of their mass by 2100, raising sea levels by up to 13cm. Global food production could decline by up to 14% by 2050 if there are not effective strategies to adapt. Human health, water supplies, nature, cities, infrastructure and economies could all be severely damaged. Some losses would be irreversible. Many communities may have to relocate or change their livelihoods. The report said the best hope for humanity to limit damage was to adopt an "overshoot, peak and decline" pathway that required immediate and sustained greenhouse gas emissions cuts combined with steps to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
It described the goal of net zero emissions -- increasingly politically contentious in some countries -- as "an essential milestone that cannot be skipped" and stressed carbon dioxide removal through steps such as establishing vast new forests must occur alongside, not as an alternative to, deep cuts in fossil pollution. Crucially, the authors of the report, titled Limiting Overshoot, said the average global temperature could be returned to 1.5C this century only if heating stayed below about 1.8C. They warned nature's capacity to store carbon was uncertain and would shrink the more the planet heats. [...] The report's authors cited earlier work that found limiting heating to about 1.8C required global emissions to be halved by 2035. They said existing national policies were projected to lead to at least 2.3C heating, but it would still be possible to limit stay below 2C if countries delivered on net zero emissions commitments by mid-century.
Depends on who you are I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean yeah everyone else is fucked but we're all going to be billionaires right? We're just temporarily inconvenienced... And I'm sure Elon Musk thinks of you and me as his buddies. We will be joining him on Mars
Re:Depends on who you are I guess (Score:4, Funny)
Mars.
Famous for its temperate zones with plenty of fresh water.
Re: Depends on who you are I guess (Score:5, Interesting)
And everyone knows it's so much easier to terraform a planet than to keep a perfectly livable one livable.
Re: Depends on who you are I guess (Score:2)
Give us time, though... we'll catch up.
Re:Depends on who you are I guess (Score:4, Interesting)
And I'm sure Elon Musk thinks of you and me as his buddies. We will be joining him on Mars
IIRC he's not particularly keen on being among the first to go to Mars. At least not until Mars has blackjack and hookers.
Re: Depends on who you are I guess (Score:2)
Re: Depends on who you are I guess (Score:2)
I think we should insist he goes
Re: Depends on who you are I guess (Score:2)
On the next starship no less
Re: (Score:2)
Free from any pain? Wait till you get older, and need serious medical care.
we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:5, Insightful)
unless nature flicks us off like the fleas that we are, i’m pretty sure the planet is gonna sprint past that finish line.
humans avoid discomfort at all costs. and that, i fear, is what is driving climate change denialism. acknowledging that burning fossils heats our world would mean giving up the F150, air conditioning, flying, consumerism, AI data centers, filthy eating habits and so much more. it is easier for folks to delude themselves and agree with the dotards that make decisions to continue the course. why give up what life has to offer when you only live once? besides, you can always blame biden.
Re: we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:2, Insightful)
Why the fuck would you embrace pain that you can easily avoid? Jesus.
Re: we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:5, Interesting)
Because we have to believe there will be a future. And currently our kids are not sure there will be. And I don't blame them. I felt the same way in the 1980s about nuclear brinkmanship. The difference, unfortunately was Reagan and Gorbachev got their shit together and hammered out a plan that everyone agreed was a good idea. I see no evidence of anything like that happening with climate change.
The thing is, its not THAT painful to make the changes. We know we can sort the energy bit with a combination of solar, wind, and with a bit of planning nuclear. We can transition to electric vehicles. We can reduce our carbon to essential plastics, chemicals, and food production. Theres things we CAN do but aren't. It won't save us from that 1.8c, thats a bigger more complicated project. But not making shit worse, thats entirely doable.
(Keeping in mind theres a 20-ish year lag on CO2. We're really currently doing 1990s carbon right now.)
Re: we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:4, Insightful)
I felt the same way in the 1980s about nuclear brinkmanship. The difference, unfortunately was Reagan and Gorbachev got their shit together and hammered out a plan that everyone agreed was a good idea.
The other difference was that the consequences of a nuclear exchange were far more tangible. There was no question that even if you did survive the initial bombardments, life afterwards was absolutely going to suck. Radiation has so many awful ways it can kill you, too.
Climate change, though? Depending on your age, it might not even be a problem you'll have to concern yourself with. Trump, for example, is most certainly going to excuse himself from this mortal coil before the shit ever gets close to hitting the fan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:3)
History is full of both sensationalism and denialist downplaying, but so what? Prior performance is no guarantee, and the science says that's especially true now - it specifically tells us we don't know what to expect.
Nuclear (Score:4, Insightful)
"and with a bit of planning nuclear"
Unfortunately the 20th century "greens" (in reality left wing anti west agitators who deliberately conflated nuclear power with nuclear weapons) put paid to any sensible nuclear program in most of the west except France. And in germany they closed all their nuclear plants only a few years back and switched to burning lignite FFS. Yes, they have solar and wind but it hardly makes up for the loss of the nuclear base load.
Re: Nuclear (Score:3, Informative)
Sensible nuclear program like France's which costs more than anyone else's and is unreliable?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's almost like if you deliberately sabotage something in every way possible while dishonestly subsidizing the alternative and externalizing every single one of its failures and flaws you can skew the results.
Re: Nuclear (Score:5, Informative)
Unreliable in the sense that its provided 60% of france's power since the 1960s? I'll take that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The sun doesn't shine at night and the wind doesn't always blow. Apart from that renewables are a perfect green solution.
Re: (Score:2)
The sun doesn't shine at night and the wind doesn't always blow.
Indeed, but demand isn't constant and tends to be higher during the day. Given that nuclear is expensive, then sizing provision to meet the highest peak isn't really cost-effective. If you want expensive power that's more predictable (maintenance notwithstanding) then fine, but in general people would not be happy with the cost. France's power looks cheap, but it's partly hidden in taxes. But if people make a democratic decision to adopt nuclear entirely (it requires government subsidy) based on full inform
Re: (Score:2)
You ever stopped to wonder why so many data centres are building their own gas turbine generators? But hey, I'm sure they'll all be solar or wind powered one day! Jesus...
Re: (Score:3)
But hey, I'm sure they'll all be solar or wind powered one day!
Most already use solar or wind power via... the grid. A few have local provision but more as a way of defraying costs by using existing roof space.
Re: Nuclear (Score:2)
It's because it's the cheapest option, obviously. I mean, obvious to smart people, not you
Re: Nuclear (Score:2)
Unreliable in the sense of cracks forming, maintenance shutdowns and corrosion problems.
Re: (Score:2)
France is the world's largest electricity exporter
Too bad it's not more profitable for them like it would be if they were not reprocessing fuel. That is hazardous so doing it right magnifies their costs dramatically. To their credit, they do it right; to their detriment, it costs more than replacing it all with renewables and batteries.
By all means keep playing nuclear playboy though. That is what every idiot does.
Re: we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My kids aren't having kids because of this reason. And I support their decision.
Having children is always a risk. You should consider the factors and should feel free to make the choice that's right for what you want in life, and for the ability of the children to have a good life.
That said, for nearly all of human history, 50%+ of babies died before the age of 15. Climate change is bad, but I don't think we will get to 50% childhood death rate any time soon.
Instead, perhaps you and your children and your grandchildren could work to be part of the solution?
Re: we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:4, Insightful)
10 years ago, I could tell that we were blowing past the 1.5C mark without even slowing down. Whenever I said it, people would scoff or downmod. Here we are.
We will survive and adapt. CO2 levels were this high during the miocene, and mammals did ok back then. Today, we have science and technology. In a century, the world will be REALLY warm, but we’ll also have enormous amounts of solar energy, some wind, walmart-sized grid-scale batteries, and every living space will have AC. Entire cities/regions will need to be abandoned, refurbished or rebuilt. Food production will move towards the poles and adapt in a hundred other ways.
And, we’ll probably have to geoengineer the planet. Scientists and engineers need to be prepping for this, because we’re gonna need it. It won’t be optional. This is another thing that gets downmodded nearly every time I say it because someone screams “SNOWPIERCER”.
Re: (Score:3)
Everything you list as a solution - it’s all happening. Renewable energy adoption, EVs, electrification, etc. etc. But not fast enough to bend the warming curve.
And even if they happened faster, it still wouldn't be enough. The focus on emissions reduction to the exclusion of everything else is going to kill a lot of people.
The only way we're going to fix this is to get to net negative, and while emissions reduction can help it will never be enough. That being the case, we should be investing a lot into capture and sequestration research.
And, we’ll probably have to geoengineer the planet. Scientists and engineers need to be prepping for this, because we’re gonna need it. It won’t be optional.
Absolutely. We should admit that we're in for some more CO2 rise before we can make it fall, no matter what we do, and inves
Re: (Score:2)
We aren't going to stop flying, we aren't going to setup a factories in every country to reduce global shipping, we're not going to stop eating meat and we're not going to all magically transition to an EV that's backed by 100% clean energy.
We could but that would cost rich folk money. So we won't.
Re: (Score:2)
We will if it gets hot enough. Almost no one flew a hundred years ago because they didn't have enough money. If there are food shortages, water wars and mass migrations from coastal cities and the tropics most people will again be too poor to fly, meat will be a luxury a
Re: (Score:3)
Because we have to believe there will be a future. And currently our kids are not sure there will be.
Dude, I grew up under the threat of nuclear annihilation. Don't start preaching to me about the kids of today not believing there is a future. That tactic has been used all of my life.
Re: we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:2)
More severe consequences are happening already, but by all means stick your head up Trump's ass and pretend otherwise.
Re:we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:5, Informative)
acknowledging that burning fossils heats our world would mean giving up the F150, air conditioning, flying, consumerism, AI data centers, filthy eating habits and so much more
It never did, this is just what the denial-ism crowd wants to sell it as. To accept this framing is to accept their argument, it's just a different kind of denialism... let's call it it the nihilism-denial-ism.
Small changes years ago would have made all the difference. Changes today will have to be larger, yes but your scenario has never been the scientist's answer it's the pundit's answer.
Re:we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:5, Interesting)
And on that note you'd have to ask why those views which represent a very thin slice of the electorate and a very thin slice of the politicians gets such a large and loud amount of media; because it's sensational for the 24/7's and for the conservative media is an easy way to paint your opponents as crazies.
Meanwhile Biden and the moderates passed the largest most comprehensive climate legislation in possibly world history [wikipedia.org] that is anything but anti-abundance and anti-humanity and no one acknowledged it at the time or really at any point since, we punished Biden for it and now it's getting dismantled piece by piece.
Re:we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:5, Insightful)
they are still burying blades while talking about how supposedly green these are
OH NOES! THEY ARE BURYING FIBERGLASS!!!!!! STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES!
The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that wind turbine blades comprise 0.017% of the combined municipal solid waste and construction debris buried annually, about 50,000 tons. Meanwhile we are burying 35,000,000 tons of coal combustion byproducts annually. (It was about 2-3x that 10 years ago.) But yeah, I can understand where you'd be concerned about wind turbines.
Similar with ethanol in gasoline.
Growing food to turn it into a gasoline substitute is football-bat level stupid. Maybe we should have figured out how to use something other than corn to make ethanol, rather than capitulating to the farm lobby.
Re: we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:2)
We knew how to do it with algae already but as you say we were doing a farm handout
Re: (Score:2)
Re: we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:2, Informative)
Re: we’re probably gonna bust past 1.8C (Score:3)
Nobody forgot the scams run by people selling quack replacements for the working vaccine
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if the people making these demands were to lead by example instead of living lives of such unbelievable luxury and excess in their dozen beachfront homes people would be more likely to believe them. Especially if their demands actually made logical sense, like demanding that the 15 cargo ships that out-pollute every private automobile on the planet were dealt with rather than demanding people give up meat and air conditioning and go back to living worse than medieval peasants.
Or if they didn't all see
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Isn't air conditioning partly to blame for getting us into this mess in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Not as such, not necessarily – like if it would be fueled by photovoltaics instead of coal. There's hardly any other appliance besides the AC for which solar energy were a similarly perfect fit. (There still are possible severe effects through refrigerant leaks, at least with those refrigerants in conventional ACs until lately, but that would be avoidable; and the waste heat that's dumped outside has some potential to worsen local urban climate, but the global warming effect is negligible as far as I
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think that? Can you answer that question with yet more questions?
Rob Jetten's billions will lower it by 0.00003C (Score:2)
At least that idea makes me sleep sound at night.
For the smooth brains and kool aid drinkers (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a handy graphical aid and citations for all the data points. https://www.explainxkcd.com/wi... [explainxkcd.com]
Feel free to dispute with your own data.
Re: For the smooth brains and kool aid drinkers (Score:2)
It says "BCE" so it's woke
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For the smooth brains and kool aid drinkers (Score:5, Informative)
I'm old enough to remember the data before it was 'adjusted' to create warming trends that weren't in the actual data from actual thermometers.
And I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't so goddamned hot.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when houses were built without air conditioning, and some had a radiator in the car garage to to avoid to have to unfreeze the car in the morning.
I remember not going to school because the snow was more than half a meter high.
I remember when two
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't so goddamned hot.
If humans lived 10x longer, then you would also be old enough to remember when it was so goddamned hot the last time.
Re:For the smooth brains and kool aid drinkers (Score:5, Interesting)
I grew up in a rural community. The farmers all think global warming is a liberal conspiracy. But they're also happy to tell you how it just doesn't get cold in the winter like it used to, they're constantly worried because the spring melt isn't ever as much water as it was twenty years ago, and the weather has just been crazy unpredictable the last decade or so.
Re:For the smooth brains and kool aid drinkers (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm old enough to remember when delusional disorder was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders edition IV. It describes a recurring false believe, especially when it has been debunked over and over again such as the so called "adjustment to create warming trends"
Congrats my friend, you officially have a mental illness.
Re: For the smooth brains and kool aid drinkers (Score:3)
Re: For the smooth brains and kool aid drinkers (Score:2)
So you invoke science yet tell someone to rot in - hell - of all places? How scientific...
Re: (Score:2)
Science isn't about your morals or what you think is proper or worth being smug about.
If someone's approach upsets you, aren't you holding your feelings above the facts?
Learn to swim (Score:2)
Learn to swim. The best outcome would be gills.
Force companies to remove their own emissions (Score:4, Interesting)
Companies that dispose of physical waste have to pay for its disposal. Companies that release fossil carbon as CO don't. Why isn't CDR treated the same way — as the obligation to clean up your own waste?
Given the current state of the science, existing law should already cover this. The laws haven't changed. Nature has, and so has what we know about it.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/... [europa.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's a small tip of the iceberg. The companies we would most gladly vilify as those who have done the most damage are precisely the ones who don't do the emissions themselves, but rather sell products to others who proceed to do the emitting.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies that release fossil carbon as CO don't.
YOU are the one choosing to emit CO (and CO2) when you burn the fuel to drive your car. YOU are the one choosing to emit CO when you heat your house. What are YOU doing to address YOUR emissions?
If YOU are not doing anything, then why should you expect anyone else to do so?
Re: Force companies to remove their own emissions (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm choosing to participate in society in a way that will allow me to remain homed, what a bad person!
People who aren't dumb as fuck know that the average person's decisions add up to dick.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called a carbon tax. Maybe you've heard of it? Maybe you've voted against it? Lots of people have.
We are doomed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
All the recent gain in renewables is now quickly eaten up by AI data centers. In 2025 those centers used almost 500 TWh (2025), for a comparison electricity production from coal in US is around 740 TWh (2025). Just by dropping those we could eliminate a huge chunk of CO2 emission.
Remember a couple years back when there were stories about how we couldn't produce enough electricity to move the population over to all electrified vehicles too quickly? But Data Centers that eat electricity far faster are absolute must haves, and there can be no slowing down or by gawd grumble grumble China!
We've lived too long in the politics of fear, and now we have the FOMO people using that fear to guide us toward oblivion. Our legacy will be the leaving behind evidence of a species smart enough to ch
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is one data center that uses hydro power relevant to the the original poster's point? Do you dispute the fact that data center demand far outstrips any amount of renewable energy being produced in the US (at least according to his numbers)?
2C in the 2030s (Score:3)
Re:2C in the 2030s (Score:5, Insightful)
"one rich person who I'm accusing of being a scammer doesn't react in a way that would convince me personally that there's an immediate problem, and the rich are unquestionable (unless I tell you they're a scammer). So therefore there's no climate change, because everything is stage managed"
This isn't even an exaggerated version of what you just said. I am old enough to remember when you said things worthy of respect, when I looked up to you.
Just another whiny little disappointment posing as someone who actually understands how systems fit together.
Re: (Score:2)
Al Gore is 78. Why would he move to Alaska? He has at most 20 years left. The temperature will increase by maybe 0.2C during that time.
Re: 2C in the 2030s (Score:3)
I agree. We should wait until it is too late before we react hastily. That's why I always sell my stock after a market crash and never at the peak.
I thought (Score:2)
Trump said it's all fake?
Re:I thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump said it's all fake?
That's probably the best indicator yet that it is in fact true.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump will not be around when it gets really bad. Hence he does not care.
MAGA idiots and the like ... (Score:2)
will just vote for those who tell them it is all a big conspiracy and the right thing to do is drill, baby drill and buy even more large cars!
The number of stupid people, especially in a large country, especially in a country with amoung the highest CO2 emissions per capita, is apparently just too high to allow any hope at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I recently found an estimate that about 30% of humans everywhere are totally deranged, delusionals that are willing to do as much violence as needed to stick it to the "others" that are, in their view, the source of all problems. This seems to be about the amount of negative-value individuals that things can go either way. Somehow that does not strike me as an accident.
Ramp up then (Score:2)
Nothing new (Score:2)
Nothing will change until lots of people die (not just from the effects of such, but also things like "the boomer generation fuck off"), and/or the billionaires get hit in the wallet.
Same old story.
Lets hope the deniers die off first (Score:2)
Then the rest of us at least gets a good laugh before we die as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, the total morons that think this is a minor thing. You are as dumb and disconnected as it gets.
Did they get a key fact wrong? (Score:2)
That didn't jibe with my recollection, so I just checked. The Paris agreement was for 2 degrees C. The IPOCC said it should be 1.5.
The Guardian - We abandoned Journalism and don't care about facts.
Re: (Score:2)
"well beyond the Paris agreement goal of 1.5C"
That didn't jibe with my recollection, so I just checked. The Paris agreement was for 2 degrees C. The IPOCC said it should be 1.5.
The Guardian - We abandoned Journalism and don't care about facts.
Link to Paris Agreement https://unfccc.int/resource/do... [unfccc.int] ctrl f 1,5
Emphasizing with serious concern the urgent need to address the significant gap
between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual
emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with
holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 C above pre-
industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C above pre-
industrial levels,
Re: (Score:2)
mother nature (Score:2)
Mother Nature was not a signatory to the Paris Agreement.
That's what you think! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
So you recommend that postpone doing something about it until it's too late? Gotcha.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Folks, I can't keep track of the predictions over the last 20 years.
Look at the predictions from the 1960s - pretty accurate. Hansen, 1988 - ditto. It's been pretty accurate all along. Heck, even the sensitivity is within the error bars from Arrhenius in 1896.
But then the spin doctors worked on perfecting the wording to "Climate Change."
That was the term used from the 1950s which continued to be use. What do you think the CC in IPCC refers to? First report 36 years ago, which is more than 20.
Re:The SKY IS FALLING - again. (Score:5, Informative)
The models have been pretty damn accurate, even if they are continuously being refined. What is harder to predict is the amount of greenhouse gases that will be emitted X years from now, because it depends a lot on public policies.
A lot of countries (mostly in the Europe) reduced their emissions. Others still increased but still made efforts to limit the increase. Because of those efforts, the temperature is not raising as fast as it could have. But that's not because the models were wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In the late 1960s, prominent scientists and doomsday forecasters predicted that rapid population growth would outpace food production,
Firstly, they didn't - one of the potential circa 2 dozen scenarios included that but it wasn't a prediction. It's an important distinction. Secondly, it's not climate so whataboutism.
Re: (Score:2)
The “show me the proof” crowd is literall
Re: The SKY IS FALLING - again. (Score:2)
You know if you get enough centimeters you have a meter, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You are too stupid to understand simple text. What you overlook because if total mental incapability are the time-frames.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why full nuclear rather than a cost-effective combination of options?
Anyone who says we need to do X to solve climate change is wrong, because there is no one "X" that does it.
We need renewables, nuclear, electrification, synthetic fuels, forestation, mangroves, direct air capture, BECCS, biochar, enhanced rock weathering, cloud enhancement to increase albedo, possibly orbital solar shading, ocean alkalinity enhancement, and more that I don't know about including things maybe no one has yet thought of.
We created this problem through a wide variety of mechanisms, burning
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse: Not doable on the tech side. Carbon capture sounds nice, but even if the human race was totally focused on ramping it up as fast as possible, it would only do something for what comes after 1.8C. Engineering takes time, even when survival depends on it, and this tech is not mature enough to scale it up. Same, incidentally, with all other geoengineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Always funny when the totally mentally deranged and deeply delusional person claims that the problem is everybody else.