The Kyoto protocols had a goal. 1990 levels.
That's probably not enough, but it will serve as a first goal. It'd certainly give us more time.
It might not be enough, and at the same time it may be too costly to implement at this time. (I'm talking about real 1990 levels including developing countries) If you have to go down to much lower levels than it becomes close to impossible to do it, at least for the next several decades.
All of which suggest that while reducing burning of fossil fuels to reduce CO2 emissions might be part of a solution it almost definitely can't be all of it, and probably can't be the majority of it.
Adapting to change, sequestering CO2 underground and/or in compounds, attempts to increase the albedo of our planet slightly, attempts to increase biological absorption of CO2 (dumping iron in to certain areas of the ocean to encourage plankton growth, increased planting of trees, while fighting deforestation etc.), reducing methane emissions, and many other things could all play a role at some point.
But going down to 1990 world wide levels of CO2 emissions or stopping all fossil-fueled electrical production by 2040 just isn't in the cards. 2100? Maybe a lot can happen in a century.
Once petrol reaches ~$40/gallon, I figure it'll slow of its own accord.
You really think that is going to happen in say the next twenty years or even by 2040 (assuming you mean 2006 dollars, not inflated dollars)? |
