chrisch
Contributor
Except there are huge downsides to the methods of cutting "fossil C02" as has been proposed.
Proposed by whom? I see very little downside at all to the cutting of fossil CO2.
That is exactly the problem.
No the problem is the huge vested interests in digging up and burning fossil fuel for short term financial gain by people who don't care about anyone else.
In fact, the costs as a whole (in eliminating C02 completely) are so great that they can accurately be described as catastrophic.
Why? What costs? Why do you think that switching over to renewable energy is going to cost anything at all never mind a "catastrophic" cost? Cost to whom?
So, blindly ignoring the reality and marching on with "cut all c02" is not a safe course of action.
Why? How is it not safe? What reality?
Doing nothing may not be safe either. However we don't know that for sure because the science is far from cut and dry on the topic. .
The science is cut and dry. It's as sure as night follows day. Keep pumping fossil CO2 into the atmosphere and you will kill millions of people and screw up the planet for the next generation. For sure we can argue about how much CO2 is needed and how long it will take - that is the debate that is going on in the scientific world. The feedback loops from things like the melting permafrost giving off methane make it hard to really nail down the figures to decimal point accuracy. Perhaps the consensus is wrong and we are 30 years away or maybe 50 years away or maybe 2 years away even. I am very comfortable with a debate about the speed of the inevitable because that really is hard to predict. Where we are going and why are already settled.