Net Zero is not the Same as Zero

September 21, 2021

Just so we’re clear.

But both “zero” and “net zero” lie ahead in the same general direction, so stay the course and hit the accelerator on clean energy.

10 Responses to “Net Zero is not the Same as Zero”

  1. painedumonde Says:

    But we ALL wind up f$#*ed!

  2. neilrieck Says:

    Scams are all around us and “net zero” is just one of many. For example, Justin Trudeau was reelected Prime Minister of Canada last night. Shocking because he’s always talking about being more green than other parties (including “the Greens”). He even bought in a revenue neutral carbon tax a couple of years back but he never stopped subsidizing oil companies (a promise he mas in 2015 but has repeatedly broken)

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      It’s frustrating when political candidates for executive offices make promises that depend on legislators. At best they can push for programs, but it’s the legislatures we should be riding.

  3. Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

    Carbon offsets are so often simply scams that they are a PITA. Need work. On the other hand, getting 100% of anything is a case of impossible expectations. Diminishing returns also tend to be exponential. True offsets, stress the true, are positive, especially in these early days.

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      Tree-planting projects should have value for other than sucking up CO2. They’re good for restoration of recently-denuded lands (the Sahel, Madagascar), cooling urban areas, wind-breaks on prairie, wildlife habitat, well-managed timber, erosion control, etc..

      Nowadays we have to pay more attention to drought tolerance, flood tolerance (Katrina flooding spared the big old live oaks but killed all the southern magnolias), rooting needs (so they don’t readily fall over in a windstorm or uproot themselves when the ground gets soggy), vulnerability to thriving insects, etc.

    • Keith McClary Says:

      Bonnie Waring:

      “But the fact is that there aren’t enough trees to offset society’s carbon emissions – and there never will be. I recently conducted a review of the available scientific literature to assess how much carbon forests could feasibly absorb. If we absolutely maximised the amount of vegetation all land on Earth could hold, we’d sequester enough carbon to offset about ten years of greenhouse gas emissions at current rates. After that, there could be no further increase in carbon capture.”

      • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

        Not enough trees in the world to save it, comes under impossible expectations. Plant em anyway, they beat the hell out of mechanical air scrubbers and are worthwhile in themselves. Who is Bonnie Waring?

      • redskylite Says:

        Bonnie Waring is a Senior Lecturer, Grantham Institute – Climate Change and Environment, Imperial College London and the article in The Conversation is quite interesting – she advises not to plant trees where they don’t belong – e.g in peat bogs (which are good at carbon sequestering on their own), and observes there is a limit to the carbon trees can absorb, due to things like soil nutrients/fertilizer exhaustion etc. Clearly she is indicating we must reduce and limit (if not cease all together) our industrial carbon emissions. I The same message most scientists of Earth sciences are telling us.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: