Bjorn LomborgVarmennettu tili

How do you have a net negative of CO2 emissions? Carbon capture? Seems extremely disingenuous. Nature doesn't play nice either. One volcanic eruption could wipe out those "gains" in a second.

Too bad so many folks keep getting the inthe way of making any kind of effort ...

“the shift from deforestation to afforestation is an important source of negative emissions.” So no more tweets from you about the alleged ineffectiveness of shifting dietary habits?

The problem is laid out well. Germany has proved the renewable solution will not work. The German model attached to the entire planet by 2050 costs over $1000 trillion and increases emissions by 3x, while 25,000 GW of nuclear can be built for a tenth of that and is zero CO2.