• That would be amazing. I grew up in the 80s/90s. I remember all the hype about the ozone and we as a society were able to change course and solve the problem.

    Another thing we need to do as a society is recognize and praise the efforts that are being done to encourage those that are doing it and hopefully encourage more to follow in their steps.

  • It’s good that we’re decreasing our impact. That said, the climate is a really massive thing that we’ve been pushing against for over 200 years, and climate change now has an incredibly massive amount of momentum behind it.

  • Tthis is perhaps good news, but it does not amount to a change of course, unfortunately. If we have passed peak emissions, it is still a long way from net-zero emissions. Like if you pass your peak rate of overspending your salary, but you are still continuing to go farther into debt. Even when you get to parity between salary and expenditures, you will STILL have the accumulated debt and in the case of CO2, that debt is wreaking ecosystem destruction. Do not cheer this news.

      • Yeah and another war would cause those policies to go on the backburner immediately. For example nobody in Ukraine cares about greenhouse emissions now, they are dashing their diesel tanks through the mud like there is no tomorrow. And in fairness, if they don’t do that there may not be a tomorrow for them. So a lot of this depends on world stability. Which is pretty unlikely with the type of ‘leaders’ the world is seeing now IMO.

  • The actual article is not nearly as positive as the headline :)

    As they mention reducing is key. But I think it’s going to be really hard to do carbon capture at a scale that actually matters. It will require a lot of additional green power generation, and the material extraction for the capture machinery, the transportation, the maintenance etc will have to be low carbon as well, otherwise there is still no point.

    And there is significant inertia in greenhouse production so the greenhouse effect would keep rising for a decade even if we were at zero now.

  • 🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

    Click here to see the summary

    Still, that it’s possible at all to conceive of bending the curve in the near term after more than a century of relentless growth shows that there’s a radical change underway in the relationship between energy, prosperity, and pollution — that standards of living can go up even as emissions from coal, oil, and gas go down.

    “That puts us in this race between the really limited time left to bend the emissions curve and start that project towards zero, but we are also seeing this sort of huge growth, an acceleration in clean technology deployment,” Grant said.

    There will still be year-to-year variations from phenomena like El Niño that can raise electricity demand during heat waves or shocks like pandemics that reduce travel or conflicts that force countries to change their energy priorities.

    In its own analysis, the International Energy Agency reports that global carbon dioxide emissions “are set to peak this decade.” The consulting firm McKinsey anticipates that greenhouse gases will begin to decline before 2030, also finding that 2023 may have been the apogee.

    Many governments are also contending with higher interest rates, making it harder to finance new clean energy development just as the world needs a massive buildout of solar panels, wind turbines, and transmission lines.

    The next few years will shape the warming trajectory for much of the rest of the century, but obstacles ranging from political turmoil to international conflict to higher interest rates could slow progress against climate change just as decarbonization needs to accelerate.


    Saved 89% of original text.