Discontinue the use of single use plastic and internal combustion engines.
- massive expansions of renewables (doable since costs have dropped precipitously)
- possibly temporary use of fission (replaced hopefully by fusion)
- elimination of diesel-powered ships, replaced by electrical (battery) and/or nuclear fission (again hopefully replaced by fusion)
- elimination of FF-powered air transport with electric-powered
- derivation of reasonable amounts of polymers from recycled materials and plant sources
- improved, efficient post-consumer recycling diverting a considerable fraction of the waste stream back into raw materials
Furthermore, it is necessary and possible to spend on the order of what was spent on the wars in Afganistan and Iraq on CCS to return GHGs to pre-industrial levels... if we don't do this, nothing else matters because we (and our progeny) will all be dead. We ought to examine:
- ferrous ocean seeding of phytoplankton blooms
- blooming the kelp over-proliferation between Mexico and Africa for harvest and subterranean/hadopelagic CCS
And to be consistent, the top two other major sources of GHGs should be minimized:
- meat agriculture
- clinker production (Portland cement / concrete)
So the math here is simple: to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 [brand new] nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. At the same time, a nuclear plant’s worth of fossil fuels would need to be decommissioned every day, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.
I’ve found that some people don’t like the use of a nuclear power plant as a measuring stick. So we can substitute wind energy as a measuring stick. Net-zero carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment of ~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square miles, every day starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.
Just consider the steel (coking coal) and cement needed to accomplish this.
source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero...
Its a simple method and easy to validate on your own.
It has to be a combination and there will have to be painful adjustments to the current western lifestyle.
We need to find better ways of moving around, buy less stuff and produce food in better ways.
I feel quite confident in saying “that will never happen.”
If you want to avoid a mass revolution from the people, you can’t take away quality of life.
Furthermore the fact that we aren't building 10 test fusion reactors all around the planet shows how less people are aware of the problem, and how little effort and resources are we willing to allocate toward really averting it.
1. No energy savings.
2. No carbon sequestration.
Now, I'm no expert on either of these, but both are of extreme importance to achieving emission reduction goals, and there is huge potential for such reductions.
https://medium.com/otherlab-news/decarbonization-and-gnd-b8d...
“The mere act of electrification has a powerful effect on efficiency: electrifying the US economy from carbon free sources will reduce the amount of energy needed by more than half.”
If we're to make progress on climate change, more practical solutions than those a grade schooler can trivially dream of, need to be discussed.
If we could cold turkey cut off single use plastic and IC engines without disrupting the economy and civilisation, we already would
As for single use plastics, you're going to have to narrow that down. What about medical plastics? Food service gloves? Hazmat suits?
In a century I could imagine a 50-80% decrease in usage in the US, but by that time Africa and Asia will have doubled in population. Any efficiency gains are totally lost with an increase in population. Every added person will guarantee a life of consumption which requires the use of oil, especially in a nation which isn't anywhere close enough to replacing their infrastructure with "green" technologies.