Hitting peak emissions is a significant step in the fight against CO2, but CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing annually because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for ~1000 years.
> most deadly
Smog is estimated to kill ~7 million people annually. Climate change is predicted to kill 250,000 people annually.
It's a much different story for non-human species who are less impacted by local pollution (aka smog) vs global pollution (aka CO2).
The technological advancements are impressive. With the imminence of "peak population", hopefully unsustainable resource consumption will all hit their peaks.
This is a great thing for people who enjoy the amazing abundance and splendor of the natural world. It's unfortunate that the advance of civilization erased so much of the variety in the process.
Why should they be unsustainable? Lots of people do not have the energy (ie. heat in Western Europe, for example), food, goods and transportation options they desire.
And we certainly can have 10x the current energy usage on earth without destroying the planet. Just because we haven't historically doesn't mean it can't be done, or that we won't (in fact we will, since we will run out of fossil fuels a lot sooner than we'll run out of people). It will take some technological advancement, and finding something else for the middle east and Russia to do, but surely we can do better than reducing the human population?
I feel like taking a "just outlaw it" approach is definitely going to make many people suffer, and it's not necessary. We should discuss other options, and research them.
Yup. Traditionally, there was a lot of political resistance to classifying CO2 as a pollutant, but outside the context of politics in oil-producing countries, it seems faintly absurd _not_ to consider it one.
The first article you posted doesn’t say the new admin will push combustion vehicles over electric vehicles. It says that Trump wants consumers to buy the kind of vehicle of their choice.
