Home | About | Donate

Senate Democrats' Plan for Net Zero Carbon Emissions by 2050 Is 'Wishful Thinking' on Solving Crisis, Climate Action Groups Say

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/12/senate-democrats-plan-net-zero-carbon-emissions-2050-wishful-thinking-solving-crisis

1 Like

Reality check: It is NOT wishful-thinking; it is UNREALISTIC!
More fucking incrementalism!

The government can get missile money right away but a minimum wage will take YEARS, incrementally, to get to AT LEAST $15 when it will be a sick and sad joke by then!

3 Likes

All these old dems will be dead by 2050, the ancient idiot in the picture probably much sooner. They made their millions and are just protecting their investments. They could give a rat’s ass about the younger generation.

3 Likes

O.K., Barton, you crossed a fucking line and we usually agree. I AM AN OLD GUY WHO WILL BE DEAD WAY BEFORE 2050 and I have NEVER made a fortune and have been homeless in my past, not counting my fucking millions!

Your generalizations are not only offensive but pure CHILDISH BULLSHIT!!!

I also believe the younger generation is the only hope for this shit country.

So take that info and pound fucking sand!!!

1 Like

This may not happen even with Bernie at the helm. The republicans have shown us that they are non responsive to the climate crisis. If they follow the trump agenda, all legislation will be dead at the vine. Then if needed they will tie anything progressive up in court filings. Some will possibly be tied up until that 2050 date. A little sarcasm at the end here.

2 Likes

I have always thought that these things we are going to do in twenty or so years is just another way to say “we aren’t gonna do diddly about this issue!” We are in the business of moving from plastic straws to paper ones and we are going to do it over the next five years which means that they will continue to endanger the creatures of the planet with unnecessary dangerous trash for a minimum of five more years, to what purpose?

4 Likes

I’m sure my account will be randomly banned here soon given that Common Dreams hate when accounts question their papers on accuracy, but I can’t sit by when an article so ignorantly misconstrues scientific papers…

“ In 2018, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a study warning that world governments have only until 2030 to keep the warming of the plant to 1.5º Celsius in order to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis.”

The 2018 IPCC Special Report on CO2 emissions DOES NOT SAY THIS. This is what the report actually states (straight from the study):

“C.1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). For limiting global warming to below 2°C CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 25% by 2030 in most pathways (10–30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2070 (2065–2080 interquartile range).”

At NO time does this report state that we must cut all emissions by 2030. Why do progressives keep saying this? It’s as if nobody actually read chapter 3 of this study…

Additionally if you’re going to have quotes from institutions claiming that it’s “dangerously misleading for advanced nations to set targets out as far as 2050”, then you probably don’t want to quote the 2018 IPCC study. If this is supposed to be a nations blueprint, then you might want to read chapter 3 where it states:

” In 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot, renewables are projected to supply 70–85% (interquartile range) of electricity in 2050 ( high confidence ). In electricity generation, shares of nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) are modelled to increase in most 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot.”

1 Like

The up side is that the Republican’ts who will vote this down, or more likely not bring it up, will be compost as well. The problem, of course, is that none of us will actually have to deal with the chaos that we have wrought.

It’s gonna be amazing when my account gets banned for quoting actual scientific studies that disprove comments made by CD, whereas other profiles can just spout obscenities like some comments above…

1 Like

Which is why we have to remove enough conservatives from all 3 branches of federal, state and local governments to do what’s necessary–whatever peaceful actions are needed to do that including blockading government buildings and access routes, surrounding residences, and setting up alternative structures of government, business, religion, non-profit…

We need to eliminate at least 90% of fossil fuel use by 2030, by which time we also need to be net negatively emitting. The last 10% has to follow soon after.

2050 is just another delaying tactic, meant to put off action forever.

The US will need to declare a climate emergency as soon as the president is voted out and/or removed. Fossil fuel, ICEV, agro-chemical, banking and other industries will have to be nationalized and shut down in coordination with the fastest possible replacement of them by efficiency, wiser lives, and clean safe renewable energy. We’ll need to speed up implementation of the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depletion; reforest the planet; transform chemical-industrial agriculture into small-scale low meat perennials-based organic permaculture; transform industry into benign, biomimicing, closed-loop craft industry subject above all to the precautionary principle.

We’ll need a strong, mandatory global treaty on migration, well-interlinked continental grids and networks of rail, and high speed rail hooked into hubs of light rail, EV jitneys and short-haul trucks etc. to replace flying and private driving. Shipping, flying, plastics, concrete, and steel are often said to be the hardest things to solve, but with these measures shipping and flying are virtually solved (especially the wiser lives part) and in 10 years, treating them like Manhattan Projects, and finally realizing we just have to stop insisting on profits for the already-rich in concrete and steel, all but plastics will be solved, and that can quickly be reduced by 50-75% with determination. It’s much more likely forestry will be the hardest and most complex problem, since we’ll have to achieve global equality on a scale not contemplated by anyone I know of to stop deforestation.

To do all this in a little over 10 years is a flabbergasting task; we better get busy. To have any chance of doing it at all we’ll need to recognize the ecological crisis as the main outcome of our millennia-old psychological crisis, and taking steps to heal it as serious and immediate as the other solutions.

1 Like

What’s your deal? This is your first post and you act like the gestapo is editing your every remark.

3 Likes

I would suggest that you think about all the changes that were made during WWII and the science that it enabled. Times of great stress are also the times of huge leaps of science and change. We will prevail if the powers that be wake up to their responsibilities!

1 Like

Because it’s my 4th account in 2 weeks, and my 3 previous were banned after making responses to other commenters while citing and quoting scientific studies and engineering reports. Literally had nothing in my comments that went against CD terms and conditions nor their online policy, yet was banned anyways…

Also I’d like to point out the following;
“ Fourth, three studies stand out in this review as exceptional: Jacobson & Delucchi, Worldwatch, and WWF. Notably, these studies all aim to demonstrate the feasibility of energy efficiency and renewable energy-dominated decarbonization strategies and thus normatively constrain the available portfolio of low-carbon technologies by excluding, a priori, nuclear energy and/or CCS. To accomplish deep decarbonization with this limited portfolio, this group of studies depends on sustaining global energy intensity improvements for decades at a rate twice as fast as the most rapid energy intensity improvement experienced in any single year in recent history and roughly 3.5 times faster than the average global rate sustained from 1970 to 2011 (Figure 3). Furthermore, these studies call for normalized capacity additions of the remaining eligible low-carbon energy technologies of 5–23 GW/year/$T of GDP (Figure 6). In contrast, normalized generation capacity of all types grew by just 1.5–3 GW/year/$T of GDP from 1965 to 2010. Given the multiplicity of feasibility challenges associated simultaneously achieving such rapid rates of energy intensity improvement and low-carbon capacity deployment, it is likely to be both premature and dangerously risky to ‘bet the planet’ on a narrow portfolio of favored low-carbon energy technologies.”

This is an excerpt from conclusive remarks made by “ A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility?” - a published meta-feasibility analysis report reviewing 11 published decarbonization scenarios.

Why do people that the GND cannot be achieves in 10 years? Because of analysis like the one above. This study found that 3 100% renewable studies would require capacity addition, manufacturing capacity and sustainable innovation rates that were not only historically unprecedented but that were unprecedented by several magnitudes.

Those 3 published 100% renewable studies are for completion by 2050 on a 30 year timeframe. The GND demands the same success in a 1/3 of the time. Based on these analysis that would be statistically impossible.

If you still want to support the GND timeframe - fine, but then you need to provide some evidence that it would be feasible…

PSwaneeX is off, as usual.

From the article:

…world governments have only until 2030 to keep the warming of the plant to 1.5º Celsius in order to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis. At the time, Friends of the Earth Europe warned that the European Union’s proposal to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 was “simply too late.”

“The climate crisis will never get solved with wishful thinking and half-measures that punt all-important decisions to the EPA,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “If we’re going to get out of the mess we’ve created, Congress needs to start listening to the desperate pleas of scientists and act decisively to cut emissions by at least half by 2030. Sadly this bill just doesn’t cut it.”

At NO point did the article say we have to eliminate emissions by 2030. That’s the usual straw person couched as an ad hominem.

In any case, we are not going to stay under 1.5°C under preindustrial temperature. It’s mathematically impossible. We are also not staying under 2°. Current policies for most major emitters are aiming the world at 4-5°; only India’s are safer. (China’s actual progress is also much more advanced and aggressive than most countries.) The US, otoh, lags behind almost every major industrial country, shamefully squandering its phenomenal renewable and monetary wealth and relatively advanced infrastructure (at least for the third world country that it’s becoming).

The IPCC, in insisting on a very high level of certainty and being subject to many serious constraints on its work by the countries that own it, has been horribly optimistic, as has been pointed out to PSX many times. Many scientists and scientific agree that we have to act faster than the IPCC recognizes; though each of its reports have shown the previous ones were even more irrationally optimistic, it’s still catching up to reality. I’ve referred PSX to citations saying so many times; s/he refuses to acknowledge them. (Well, couldn’t find them for an embarrassingly long time, now won’t acknowledge.) PSX needs to catch up to the science, too.

2 Likes

Dude your own plan, the climate mobilization, literally states that getting off of fossil fuels by its timeframe is likely impossible… Cmon how many times do we have to go over this…

“Heinburg and Fridley concur: Even assuming a massive buildout of solar and wind capacity will probably be unable to fully replace the total quantity of energy currently provided by fossil fuels, let alone meet energy demand growth. Despite these challenges heinburg and Fridley argue that a massive mobilization can deliver 100% renewable energy”.

Although yes immediately after it states that it can’t be done the study blindly and miraculously comes to the conclusion with no evidence that it can be…

Jerry Brown, the ex-governor of California, said if hydrocarbons were cut off when he was governor he’d have people in the street shooting each other. The vast majority of America drive internal combustion vehicles, so there is a problem. J4Zonian states some of them.

2 Likes

Yup. It’s a tough job. Yup. It’s unprecedented. So is everything before it’s done for the first time. And before it’s done, there can be no proof an unprecedented thing can be done. (Impossible expectations, yet another fallacy PSX uses over and over.)
But of course all this it can be. We have the industrial capacity to do everything needed to eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years, reduce concrete, steel, flying and driving emissions to a tiny fraction of what they are, switch agricultural emissions to negative while feeding the world better than we do now, and do all the other technical things we need.

The US WWII production predicted by FDR, and necessary to win, was claimed by many to be impossible. A fair number who knew about it thought the Manhattan project would fail; even more said Germany couldn’t be defeated. Many said getting to the moon was impossible. Many, over generations, have said fascism couldn’t come to the US. All those were proved to be wrong by the only means possible or necessary–doing them. PSX wants to not just wallow in despair but to recruit to it, and not even try to avoid catastrophic ecological collapse the only way that’s possible. His or her multiple aliases show a remarkable determination to do so. I wonder why? Is it a job or a hobby?
S/he should seek psychotherapy to find out why s/he’s compelled to try to stop others from working toward solutions.

3 Likes

Then why shouldn’t the timeframe be a week? By your notion we should make timeframes whatever we want and just do it. We don’t need any data or feasible plan to get us there, we just make a declaration of time and anything is possible.

So why isn’t the timeframe 1 week?

You really need to read more and type less.

And listen to the Lou Reed song, “Strawman”. You don’t seem to appreciate fact as much as you should, and then blame us for it.

4 Likes

Right because of:
“We have the industrial capacity to do everything needed to eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years”

Ok what is this based on? How did J4Zonian come this conclusion? What evidence shows this?

Been asking for some resemblance of proof for two weeks, and nothing to show for it…

So go figure I’m a little skeptical…