A number of climate activists have zeroed in on two dates: 2030 and 2050. There are some good reasons for this, namely that certain reports use these two dates as benchmarks for preventing the worst of climate change. As I may have said before, there’s no stopping climate change, only containing it.
Why these two dates? Well, 2030 was chosen by the IPCC as a good intermediate date where we could measure our success, but the number itself is totally arbitrary. The scientists chose it because it’s a round number between now and the middle of the century.
The same is true, interestingly enough, for 2050. Basically, we need to be carbon negative at some point. We’ve already emitted more carbon into the atmosphere than is desirable, so eventually we need to start withdrawing more than we’re emitting. When the scientists and economists who study climate change were designing policy, they determined that 2050 was a realistic target for hitting carbon neutrality. If we want to get to carbon neutral before we burn through our carbon budget, 2050 is possibly a realistic goal.
You may be asking, what exactly do I mean by “carbon budget”? Well, it’s pretty simple. The mean global temperature is rising. It’s been rising for decades, and we’ve determined that we’d like to keep that temperature increase below 1.5° C. Now, it takes a certain amount of carbon in the atmosphere to increase the global temperature by that much. We’ve already emitted the majority of that carbon, but we have not emitted all of it. The difference, i.e. the amount of carbon we can still safely emit AND hit our target, is called our “carbon budget”.
Imagine you’ve been given $10,000 to travel. The more frugal you are, the longer your vacation, it’s the exact same concept. Right now we’re staying at the Ritz-Carlton and drinking Dom Perignon, it’s fun, but we’re burning through our cash. Except this “vacation” is our entire civilization.
If we dramatically cut our carbon emissions in the next decade, we would give ourselves more time to reach carbon neutrality. If we increase our emissions, then we shorten our timeframe and reduce our margin of error.
So, if you think 2050 is a long time from now, then remember, we can move that date forward or backward. The more we cut our emissions in the short term, the longer we have to deal with the problem. The more we emit in the short term, the harder the problem gets.
Instead of focusing on 2030 or 2050, we should focus on today. A carbon atom saved today is worth more than a carbon atom saved in 10 years.
The Mangrove 