We must cut carbon emissions by something like 4% a year to stay within the 2°C surface temperature limit. (Forget 1.5°C.)
It's not just reaching "zero carbon emissions". It's reaching ZCE within the remaining carbon budget for 2°C (i.e. quickly). That cannot be done without cutting current production and consumption, especially car and plane travel.
First we need to reduce CO2-e for one year, then we need to build on that.
Every year we put more GHG into the atmosphere than we did the previous year, yet we add some solar and wind and call this progress?
Each year our fossil use increases more than our renewable energy increases, and we bask in our success?
This is like the old saw that we're losing money on each sale, but we'll make it up in volume.
It's all OK because, because, because it just has to be. My children and their children and all the hundreds or thousands that inherit my DNA will live happy, healthy, zerocarbon lives, grateful of my legacy.
Either that or they'll live short brutish lives and die of starvation while cursing my generation for the greedy excesses we enjoyed while debating whether the invisible hand of the market, or stronger governmental control, would be the best way forward.
If we can't spew out less CO2 in 2017 than we did in 2016, we are not making progress, we're just digging ourselves in deeper. Adding 50% more renewable energy doesn't matter if we also add 5% more fossil fuel during that time period.
When Mr. Keeling's infamous curve flattens, then sags, we can claim we've made a start. We won't be able to claim that we've won or will win, only that we really were serious about fulfilling our most minimal obligation to future generations.
Mildly Miffed
Terry