Thread by @JeffAndDonkeys

Scientists have understood the energy capturing nature of airborne carbon (i.e. emissions driven climate change) since at least the 1890s. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Ar…

The first World Meteorological Conference on Climate came some 80+ years later. google.com/url?q=https://…

Another decade brought Jim Hansen to the Senate to speak on the issue. google.com/url?q=https://…

How's that going? Not that well, actually.

If you observe that chart above, you'll notice it measures, not rates of emissions, but cumulative buildup of atmospheric CO2.
Emissions rates look different. But they're not laid out on parallel year scales so it's hard to form a clear mental picture.

As of this past week, President Biden hosted a virtual gathering of world leaders at which he promised ("pledged", which may be different, I'm not sure) to reduce the US rates of emissions by 50% of the 2005 rate by 2030.

In English this means, we will continue to add carbon to the atmosphere every minute of every day, but we will add it slower.
But more, more, more every day.
So theoretically, if we do this, this curve will slope down at some point.

But this one will continue to slope upwards.
Because adding is adding.

Here's another historic curve to observe.
Temperature.
As long as the above curve slopes up, so will this one.

I'll be turning 74 this summer, so if the Biden Pledge comes true, in 2030 I'll turn 83, assuming I'm still alive.
At that time, 9 years from today, if everything goes according to plan, this curve will continue to slope upwards.

This is known, in media terms, as aggressive action to curb climate change.
I'm not convinced.
But y'all go ahead on.
At least Americans can have more high-tech jobs.
And in the short run, that's all that matters.
Right?

Keep talking. I'll find you.