[ad_1]
Some argue that governments should also set their own targets to ensure that carbon emissions (sometimes called “emissions”) do not focus on emissions reduction targets.
“Such failure to diverge has already undermined climate change, exacerbated future expectations of climate change emissions, and hides the growth and expenditure of resources needed to facilitate emissions,” said McLaren and others. Limit of Season in 2019.
Sweden he did this, and set a goal of reducing at least 85% emissions under the 1990 standard by 2045 and relying heavily on carbon emissions to make the whole process to zero. The European Union also included a similar measure on its demands European Climate Law, reducing the carbon footprint to 225 million tons, or slightly less than 2% of the total target: a 55% reduction in emissions by 2030.
“It has now been established that major EU pilot efforts need to be carried out to reduce emissions, and to remove carbon to aid in excess,” he said. he wrote Frances Wang and Mark Preston Aragonès, both of the ClimateWorks Foundation.
The first stage and the greatest risk
Sally Benson, a professor of electronics technology at Stanford, says the money she sees moving towards carbon offsets today strikes her in much the same way as in the perfect technology of the 2000s, when businesses poured out technologies that were too early and too risky.
Many of these investments were unprofitable, as biofuels and other solar companies failed in the market.
“I’m a little worried that this is where we have the technology to remove carbon,” he said in an email. “Some of them are very mature and can do well and make physical differences, such as BECCS [bioenergy with carbon capture and storage], less attention is paid to less advanced technologies such as direct air blasting and salt watering. ”
But he insists that this could be a necessary technical future, and “we need to start over.”
[ad_2]
Source link
