If we embark
on a path that is equivalent to setting emissions to zero now (say by having a
period of negative emissions in the 2035 to 2050 time frame), and call the sequestration we accomplish
mitigation then
mitigation can arrest
climate change, make adaptation unneeded and bring us to a safe concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as Hansen has pointed out.
You may wonder why the government finds the need to pursue such action since 1) U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have already topped out and have generally been
on the decline for the past 7 - 8 years or so (from technological advances in natural gas extraction and a slow economy more so than from already - enacted government regulations and subsidies); 2) greenhouse gases from the rest of the world (primarily driven by China) have been sky - rocketing over the same
period, which lessens any impacts that our emissions reduction have); and 3) even in their totality, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have a negligible influence
on local / regional / global
climate change (even a immediate and permanent cessation of all our carbon dioxide emissions would likely result in a
mitigation of global temperature rise of less than one - quarter of a degree C by the end of the century).
If we embark
on a path that is equivalent to setting emissions to zero now (say by having a
period of negative emissions in the 2035 to 2050 time frame), and call the sequestration we accomplish
mitigation then
mitigation can arrest
climate change, make adaptation unneeded and bring us to a safe concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as Hansen has pointed out.