Nonsense, we’ll still emit carbon dioxide through unavoidable processes like breathing, which we’ll need to offset through rewilding. What I’m describing is what “net zero” was coined to refer to.
I want to go negative and suck carbon out of the air to fix the damage we’ve done.
Sorry if this is explaining something you’ve already heard, but net zero is a distinct concept that a significant percentage of humans agree with. Describing it as huddling around campfires might be counterproductive towards wider public support.
It sounds like you’re describing gross zero, not net zero.
Nonsense, we’ll still emit carbon dioxide through unavoidable processes like breathing, which we’ll need to offset through rewilding. What I’m describing is what “net zero” was coined to refer to.
I want to go negative and suck carbon out of the air to fix the damage we’ve done.
So you’re describing net negative, not net zero?
I guess I am. I didn’t bother drawing a distinction between the two because the difference is one atom.
Sorry if this is explaining something you’ve already heard, but net zero is a distinct concept that a significant percentage of humans agree with. Describing it as huddling around campfires might be counterproductive towards wider public support.