Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target

I think it should be somewhat obvious that it will be impossible for us to avoid the absolute worst of global warming. Humans simply don&#x27;t have the capability to act in the coordinated, political way that is necessary. Somehow holding out hope that we&#x27;ll all come to our senses and things will change is like holding out hope that we&#x27;ll never have any wars again. It is just not compatible with human nature.<p>I&#x27;d love it if I were wrong, or if someone can change my mind, but in a world where we have never had as much access to information, large swaths of the population don&#x27;t even believe global warming is _real_, let alone something we should do something about.<p>We should just start planning for the worst case scenarios, because they are going to happen regardless.

I searched for &#x27;nuclear&#x27; on that page, and found no mention of the word at all. Whatever you might think of nuclear energy, I don&#x27;t think such a drastic energy cut is even possible to implement without it. (After all, I see little point in cutting CO2 emissions in the US if people in other countries emit an amount equivalent to whatever gets cut here.)

I don&#x27;t understand why globalism rarely, if ever, factors into the debate. It boggles my mind that if I walk down to the drug store to buy a toothbrush that toothbrush was likely made in a Chinese factory, shipped across the Pacific ocean in a diesel-spewing container ship, and then driven a good thousand miles in an 18-wheeler. It seems like a <i>tremendous</i> waste of energy for something that could be made locally for cheap.

I don&#x27;t think I&#x27;ve ever seen this here :<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;theshiftproject.org&#x2F;en&#x2F;home&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;theshiftproject.org&#x2F;en&#x2F;home&#x2F;</a><p>It&#x27;s a think tank working on handling the climate crisis with excellent, pragmatic, efficiency-focused studies, without ideologies or dogma. They have recently been known to put some numbers on the CO2 emissions caused by the digital industry, that is less visible but very real (4 percent of total emissions, 4x more than air travel!)<p>They have Jean-Marc Jancovici in the management, who also founded Carbone 4 - a consulting firm working on enabling companies to make their transition to a carbon-neutral world. He&#x27;s an original figure among ecologists in France because he pleads in favor of nuclear energy in France, to avoid emitting CO2 (it&#x27;s mainly thanks to nuclear energy that France emits 7 times less CO2 for the same amount of electricity produced compared to the OECD). I highly recommend his conferences.

According to EIA global emissions are growing and predicted to grow through 2035. In 2035 global emissions are 40% higher than today.<p>When the developed world can gradually reduce CO2 emissions, China, India and the rest of the developing world will continue to increase emissions.

To stay under the 2°C limit, we need to cut emissions by 4% per year. It happened exactly twice in the past century: at the worse of the great depression in 1932, and after the annihilation of Germany and Japan in 1945.

We&#x27;re close to the tipping point for geoengineering.<p>Elites don&#x27;t want to stop global warming, they&#x27;ve spent billions of dollars trying to stop a response to global warming.<p>Ordinary people say they want to do something about global warming but if it inconveniences them such as an increase in gas taxes, they will riot in the streets. (See the Yellow Shirts in France.)<p>The conspicuous inability of governments to make elites feel a little pain (Macron and the wealth tax) means that governments have no legitimacy with which to demand sacrifices from anybody else. Thus you see &quot;last straw&quot; rebellions just about anywhere when there is an unpopular change, say a 4% increase in subway fares.<p>With geoengineering you only need to scrape together a few billion a year which could be done by a small group of elites or governments (if Bloomberg didn&#x27;t waste his time and money and reputation running for pres he could do it...)<p>The best part of it is that a credible threat to Geoengineer might solve the collective action problem for other interventions:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;link.springer.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;10.1007&#x2F;s10584-011-0102-0" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;link.springer.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;10.1007&#x2F;s10584-011-0102-0</a><p>As for all the reasons why geoengineering is seen as a &quot;cop-out&quot; note that if it&#x27;s really an extinction worth rebelling about, then we have to use &quot;all means necessary&quot; and that includes solar radiation management.

To all, because governments have mostly failed us on quick action I created a climate pledge. It is open to feedback but I think starting with individual commitments and sustainable lifestyles will help us move society forward as a whole.<p>Governments are not moving quickly enough on climate change with small incremental changes over time. However, people and organizations who champion these efforts can pressure governments to drive faster change.<p>Climate Pledge<p>To protect humanity now and for the future of our posterity I am committing to the following.<p>- I pledge to limit eating red meat. I will restrict intake of cows and lambs etc.<p>- If I choose to have children, I will have 2 or less.<p>- I will try to use cycling or mass transit options whenever possible and to participate in efforts to expand transit.<p>- I will restrict flying to only when necessary and try to limit flying to only when no other choice is available. If I do fly I will try to offset all emissions.<p>- I will try my utmost to conserve energy and minimize use of heating and cooling appliances.<p>- I will try my best to limit energy use to renewable sources when I have the choice. When I cannot choose I will fight for the ability to have this choice.<p>- I will try to help those close to me understand these choices and the need for those able, to also join the pledge.<p>- I will only consume what I need. I will not perpetuate extravagance and will only support companies who champion sustainable efforts.<p>- I will do my best to strive for and support sustainable and minimalist technology.<p>- I will stay involved in the public discourse on environmental issues and stay engaged on efforts to mitigate climate change.

Over the last 40M years, when CO2 was at current levels (400ppm), sea level was +9 to +31 meters higher. We need to reduce to 280ppm to start rebuilding ice.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pnas.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;110&#x2F;4&#x2F;1209" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pnas.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;110&#x2F;4&#x2F;1209</a><p>Coastal cities are going to move.

Is there a chart that shows the progress each nation is making year over year to cut emissions?

Isn&#x27;t this ultimately going to end up being a rationing issue? OK, rationing it&#x27;s a forbidden word today but maybe we could have carbon credits divided by person and they are free to use them however they want. Even trade them to others. I know this is _super_ simplified but perhaps we need to start thinking in those terms sooner or later?

In terms of emissions we are tracking right along RCP 8.5, the worst case emissions scenario: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.carbonbrief.org&#x2F;explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.carbonbrief.org&#x2F;explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp...</a>

Unfortunately, it feels like too many people in power would rather go down with the ship than change their ways. Since that would threaten their current privileges.

Good thing China has increased co2 emissions from coal equivalent to the current co2 output of all of Europe.<p>The US can do better, but China and much of the developing world isn’t exactly helping.

I know change is slow but I can&#x27;t help but feeling this goal is unattainable. In my own very environmentally concious state two versions of a carbon tax failed (one libertarianish leaning the other more green new deal like). France utterly rejected a climate focused gas tax. With fairly liberal populaces rejecting the economic commitment to addressing climate change It&#x27;s become very hard to imagine how we&#x27;ll ever get sufficient numbers of international polities with more conservative leaning voters to ever agree to do something.

So we&#x27;re all in trouble, I guess.

Or create sequestration systems so the net is that? Or would the numbers change?

If only some authoritarian would rid us of these meddling emissions!

What are the error bars on those numbers?