- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- climate@slrpnk.net
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/4810640
Archived copies of the article: archive.today ghostarchive.org
Annotated text, via Richard Delevan
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/4810640
Archived copies of the article: archive.today ghostarchive.org
Annotated text, via Richard Delevan
I know you want it to be stated outright, which is unlikely to happen. However, section e does state pretty directly:
Yes, you can pick on ‘the science’ and what ‘net zero’ means, but unequivocally phasing out all fossil fuels in 27 years is not achievable unless we found ways to completely replace our current infrastructural needs by that time. This includes upscaling biodiesel and ethanol production to run existing machinery that cannot yet run on electric or hydrogen power, including planes, freighters, etc.
27 years is a long time. Full replacement or retrofit is doable in that kind of time.
Thats the whole point: it doesnt call for the reduction of fossil fuels. The idea behind the draft is that we continue to invest and consume fossil fuels until some magic technology saves us by capturing and storing the CO2.
These are pipe dreams, the same way that the 1.5 pledges were.