The “must move to zero emissions” statement is simple dogma. One point these guys forget is that roughly half the anthropogenic CO2 being emitted is taken by carbon sinks. The carbon sinks function at variable speeds, trees moving north into tundra, and other “greening” we observe with satellites are a fast response. A fast response is seen in the shallower ocean layers taking CO2 (which drives pH down). A slower response would be deeper ocean layers gradually taking CO2, as well as the erosion which puts ions in the water to make more carbonates, some of which turn into rock deposits.
CO2 uptake by sinks is very hard to model, but the empyrical rule can be used to state with confidence that, if we cut emissions to 1/3 of the peak value, the CO2 concentration should stabilize or drop. Remember the sinks take more than 1/3 of emissions and gave done it for years. Therefore a reduction to 1/3 of peak implies the sinks will take more CO2 than is emitted. And thus CO2 concentration stabilizes and drops.
To create the disaster scenarios, the IPCC built RCP8.5 and the EPA built a similar case. These assume huge emissions volumes including increases in the use of coal to way beyond resource limits. I think most of you agree we do have resource limits and there will be peak fossil fuels no matter what we do. The key is to tie the limits we think are within reasonable ranges, estimate the peak concentration, and focus on wether the sinks can absorb the CO2. Thus the cumulative CO2 mumbo jumbo we read about is pure baloney. The system reacts to both cumulative AND rate.
The world is being misled by groups which, either out of ignorance or for political reasons, are constantly stating that CO2 emissions have to be driven to ZERO. To achieve this they propose impractical solutions and technologies, which I know won't solve the problem but will cause enormous economic damage.
What is being done is to build emission FORECAST to ungodly RATES so the carbon sinks are overwhelmed, this drives concentrations into danger territory. One can argue this is possible, but the IPCC and others selling the zero emissions dogma should make it very clear that their carbon sink model IS SET TO BE CHOKED so that concentrations do rise to extreme levels. I happen to think the combination of exaggerated resources, the use of very high emissions, the choking of carbon sinks, and very optimistic estimates of carbon capture and renewables performance amount to fraud. This is more than scientific fraud, because it involves engineering, project management, and economics, all of these fields conjugated into a fraudulent political case.
I believe we ARE running out of fossil fuels, and we do need to get alternatives installed, piloted, tested, and made as efficient as possible. This is also needed because it’s nutty to rely on highly unstable nations like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela, etc. But this should not be done by lying, and that’s what’s going on. What we need is adults working on the problem, and the politics should be limited to making sure we don’t let communists insert their bullshit about not growing the economy, dedevelopment and such ideas. They introduce these concepts because they know socialism/communism destroys economic growth, so they use the global warming boogie man to justify their stupid ideas.