2 Comments

I have a different take on the road ahead.

1. We're seeing an acceleration in climate calamities, both in frequency and scale. This means that the leisurely deadline of 2050 is too late and that 2030 is more likely.

2. We've seen that governments do not act in response to human tragedy (e.g., destruction of Bahamas, deadly heat waves in India, etc), despite it being increasingly prevalent. This leaves economic dislocation and political pressure (in democracies) as the pressure points.

3. With economies as the only point in common between countries, I predict that the international agreement needed for meaningful action will only come after a severe dislocation of the global economy. A climate-induced recession. It has to be undeniably climate-related and it has to be painful.

4. A panicked response will follow, with massive government intervention. Grid electrification will explode, but it will take time to be completed. A global carbon market will develop because every country will mandate emission reductions, by agreement. It has to include every country and every economic system, and not include subsidies that give one country an unfair advantage. It will take time to be worked out: my bet is that it will come into effect by 2028-2030.

5. We need to be ready with solutions by then. This gives us a six year head start.

Good luck to us all.

Expand full comment

Hello Dai (and others),

-1- Txs for the interesting article, it clearly gives some depth into the discussion of @carbonwrangler and @mliebreich.

-2- As you explained "'It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future'” .

Who would even imagined the cost reduction of solar. Or the currently happening rise of Electric cars (except @ProfRayWills and @chrisnelder )

-3- Now to CO2 removal.

3.1. There will be cost reduction.

3.2. Quite often there are more advantages (besides the CO2). See Project Vesta.

The plan was anyway to perform a beach nourishment project. So why not do it with sand (and my prediction that there will be even another advantage)

https://www.vesta.earth/southampton

3.3. The more solar/wind (and nuclear) are scaling up, the less we need it. But in a net zero world we need (some) CO2 removal.

CO2 reduce, re-use and remove.

Pol Knops

Expand full comment