Stylized pathways to “well below 2°C”
Dr Peters has also written about “Can we really limit global warming to `well below’ two degrees centigrade?” An excerpt and abstract:
Commentary: Yes, but only in a model. We have essentially emitted too much carbon dioxide already, and the most feasible pathways to stay “well below” two degrees all require removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at an unprecedented scale.
See the article for more details. And, note, I’ve written about how extraordinarily expensive negative emissions industry is, in two articles. Even assuming the engineering technology and practical rollout for such a huge global project are developed, something which might take decades by itself, we’re talking about multiples of Gross World Product to make an appreciable dent in atmospheric CO2 at projected prices. Dr Peters is not optimistic either.
And see the `stylized pathways’ article for how hard it is to keep emissions below some threshold — and so mean global temperature below some threshold — if there are delays in emissions reduction.
Dr Steven Chu gave a presentation recently at Amherst College on the risks, and concerning possible solutions:
(Dr Chu begins at time index 445.)
Notably, apart from reforestation and improvements in agricultural practice, Dr Chu does not address negative emissions technology as a feasible solution but he speaks to the difficulty. Reforestation and improvements in agriculture can help with 8% of CO2 emissions, specifically:
Restoring Carbon in soils has the potential to sequester 20 Gt of CO2 (~ 8% of cumulative CO2 emissions …)
ecoquant
667 per centimeter : climate science, quantitative biology, statistics, and energy policy 