But exhaling has become a very emotional topic. There are real concerns that strong growth in greenhouse gas emissions could encourage governments and businesses to delay or avoid the obvious and straightforward approach to climate change: preventing air from reaching the atmosphere in the first place.

The simple idea that we can continue to emit large amounts of carbon dioxide and purify the air in the future is an example of the so-called “moral hazard.” It poses a risk of boosting the use of fossil fuels and eliminating the cost of climate change for future generations.

This is a legitimate concern. Some companies have he thought wrongly that exhaustion would allow us to continue to emit at least half of the global concentrations here. But this may require the absorption and storage of carbon dioxide in standards that are technically proven, environmental, or economically impossible, or perhaps all of the above.

However, there is also a real risk that the stigma of carbon emissions at risk poses a greater risk: delaying the required funds and undermining our ability to achieve future climate goals. Unfortunately, after decades of delays, there are now a few ways to achieve our climate goals that do not seek to reduce emissions today and increase carbon dioxide emissions in the coming years.

Reducing smoke is not enough

Why is dehydration needed first, and why can’t we just stop climate change by reaching zero “emissions”? A recent UN report highlights four different levels of carbon dioxide in climate change that reduce temperatures below 2 ˚C beyond industrial volumes by 2100.

First, although fossil fuels can be converted by other energy sources in many economic areas, there will be a continuous emissions of carbon dioxide from areas that are difficult to remove. These are large industries, such as aerospace, cement, and metallurgy, where we do not have the cheapest, carbon-free methods available. Although more work needs to be done to understand how carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced, these components will continue to produce billions of tons a year that need to be reduced by carbon dioxide emissions.

Second, carbon dioxide is not the only source of global warming. Some, including methane and nitrous oxide from sources such as cattle, animal waste, and the use of fertilizers, are very difficult to get rid of.

A recent UN report found that existing technologies could reduce emissions by about 50%, with increased behavioral changes such as a shift in food pressure to 66%. However, the removal of carbon should match the amount remaining.

Source link