If you believe the GIEC (or whatever they call themselves in English) report, then there is no "reversing global warming" in any scenario that isn't an apocalypse with humans culled to a fraction of current numbers.
Only slowing the rate of warming then reaching an equilibrum because GHG rising has diminishing returns ( estimates betweem 1.5C and 3C per every time you double again concentration ).
And rising sea levels will continue for decades and centuries beyond reaching equilibrum because thermal expansion and ice packs have a relatively slow reaction and aren't going to reach equilibrum in a mere century.
So given China is basically trolling everyone with their new coal powerplants, government ineptitude and incapability to forecast unintended consequences that could negate some or all of the reductions they try to get, how about mitigation instead?
Why are governments still building infrastructures in places they claim will be periodically flooded in a few years or decades? Are they stupid or lying?
If you believe the GIEC (or whatever they call themselves in English) report, then there is no "reversing global warming" in any scenario that isn't an apocalypse with humans culled to a fraction of current numbers.
Only slowing the rate of warming then reaching an equilibrum because GHG rising has diminishing returns ( estimates betweem 1.5C and 3C per every time you double again concentration ).
And rising sea levels will continue for decades and centuries beyond reaching equilibrum because thermal expansion and ice packs have a relatively slow reaction and aren't going to reach equilibrum in a mere century.
So given China is basically trolling everyone with their new coal powerplants, government ineptitude and incapability to forecast unintended consequences that could negate some or all of the reductions they try to get, how about mitigation instead?
Why are governments still building infrastructures in places they claim will be periodically flooded in a few years or decades? Are they stupid or lying?