There is no way to fix this problem without carbon removal, even if emissions go to zero today.
yea, but just reducing the emissions ASAP does not seem to a big priority for many states at the moment
The costs are too high, and therefore the electorate is unwilling.
How do you expect humanity to get to pre-industrial revolution carbon dioxide levels without atmospheric extraction?
The US could halve their emissions and still emit at the same level of an industrialized country like France. A good starting point is to invest more in nuclear energy.
Half is still a lot more than zero, which in turn is still not the negative you need to actually reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon capture is the only option to undo the damage that's already been done, and to sustainably continue the activities where CO2 emissions are fundamentally unavoidable.
Did you reply to the wrong question? I'm not sure what your point is and how it relates to mine?
[flagged]
Since you've been using HN primarily (exclusively?) for political/ideological battle, we've banned the account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
Inaction is only the default option in totalitarian societies.
Uh, no? Business as usual scenarios are the default option (tautologically) and will lead to lots of dead bodies in the future. Anything else requires large-scale coordination to change course.
New businesses emerge everyday, many call themselves startups.