|
|
|
|
|
|
by dTal
2712 days ago
|
|
|
I suppose the question is, predicted by whom? And no change in what? If there is no change in CO2 emission, then yes we might restrict the total damage to 650 ppm. But "no change in CO2 emission" doesn't mean "business as usual", it means a moratorium on all kinds of expanding industrial activity. Not only are CO2 levels increasing, but CO2 emission rates are increasing. Hell, the first derivative of CO2 emission rate was also increasing until the past couple of years, a minor but happy development that could easily snap back. "Business as usual" means an exponential curve. Solar powered industry is still a far-off pipe dream. Even if it only takes 30 years to replace all energy sources with sustainable alternative, in 30 years huge damage will have been done. We cannot afford to just shrug and say the problem will just solve itself. https://www.co2.earth/images/widgets-in-site/climate-interac... |
|
|
As predicted by the scientific consensus and the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Disagreeing with them on this is no different than being a climate change denier, TBH.
The right thing to do is listen to the opinions of the experts, and this is what the experts believe and is the scientific consensus.