@Metal-Brain
Surely you've read about "net zero carbon emissions." A factory releases X amount of carbon dioxide into the air, but the factory owners plant a million trees that consume X amount of carbon dioxide, and so the net amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere due to the factory owners' activities is zero.
@metal-brain saidIt means that after everything is taken into consideration, what remains is 0.
I know what zero is, but what is "net zero"?
If net zero is not zero what is it?
If it is zero why add the word net?
So, say you get paid 100$ a day.
Then you get taxed, buy shopping, pay the rent, etc. If at the end of the day you have 0$ left, your income at the end of the day is net zero.
Say you get paid 0$. And there is no taxation, food or anything. Then at the end of the day you have 0$. Because nothing got added or subtracted from the whole.
21 Mar 23
1 edit
@soothfast saidThen it is not zero. That is all we know.
@Metal-Brain
Surely you've read about "net zero carbon emissions." A factory releases X amount of carbon dioxide into the air, but the factory owners plant a million trees that consume X amount of carbon dioxide, and so the net amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere due to the factory owners' activities is zero.
The amount depends on when you start. Right?
Planting trees has little to do with it. I think you are just making that up. Brazil has the Amazon forest which produces a lot of O2 naturally. Will Brazil always be in compliance even if they double CO2 emissions? Trees also have a tendency to come back naturally if the land is left alone. Especially if there is a lot of rainfall.
Planting trees is fine with me. It cannot hurt. There is plenty of old farm land here in the USA that could be planted with trees so what are people waiting for? That can be done now and it would create jobs.
21 Mar 23
@shavixmir saidBut how much CO2 is that? It cannot be zero because that is impossible. All life on the planet would die if it was.
It means that after everything is taken into consideration, what remains is 0.
So, say you get paid 100$ a day.
Then you get taxed, buy shopping, pay the rent, etc. If at the end of the day you have 0$ left, your income at the end of the day is net zero.
Say you get paid 0$. And there is no taxation, food or anything. Then at the end of the day you have 0$. Because nothing got added or subtracted from the whole.
21 Mar 23
@soothfast saidGrasslands process about as much C02 as trees. Planting trees reduces grassland.
@Metal-Brain
Surely you've read about "net zero carbon emissions." A factory releases X amount of carbon dioxide into the air, but the factory owners plant a million trees that consume X amount of carbon dioxide, and so the net amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere due to the factory owners' activities is zero.
21 Mar 23
@metal-brain saidThat’s correct. The start point could be -10 or +10 for example, but if the net result is zero then it’s still zero as an endpoint.
Then it is not zero. That is all we know.
The amount depends on when you start. Right?
But something tells be you’ve got another slipper to drop…?
21 Mar 23
@metal-brain saidOh dear.
But how much CO2 is that? It cannot be zero because that is impossible. All life on the planet would die if it was.
When talking about CO2 net zero means zero increase from a specified target, not zero CO2 in the atmosphere.
21 Mar 23
@divegeester saidRight. What is the specified target? How is that determined?
Oh dear.
When talking about CO2 net zero means zero increase from a specified target, not zero CO2 in the atmosphere.
21 Mar 23
@metal-brain saidNET ZERO because apparently we have more than enough Co2 in the atmosphere already
Right. What is the specified target? How is that determined?
21 Mar 23
@divegeester saidThat would mean if we procrastinate long enough net zero would be a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than it would be if we started now. Right?
That’s correct. The start point could be -10 or +10 for example, but if the net result is zero then it’s still zero as an endpoint.
But something tells be you’ve got another slipper to drop…?
21 Mar 23
@metal-brain saidNo.
That would mean if we procrastinate long enough net zero would be a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than it would be if we started now. Right?
One thing: During the history of mankind (last few thousand years) cO2 was about 300 ppm (give and take a few dozen).
After the advent of the industrial revolution and more so with the upcoming traffic based on burning carbonecous substances, t we now have 400 + (there is some seasonal variation).
The point is: If we want to live in the same conditions as our ancestors in a stable enviroment we need the increase to stop (net zero), if we really mean to keep nature as we are used to we need at some point (rather nearer than farer from today) to actually put "carbon" in one form or another back into the ground to recreate the conditions humankind is used to.
So if you are in a car and you see a wayll coming up going perpenticular to the street, the thing would be to stop, not to keep the velocity or even accelerate, right?
21 Mar 23
@metal-brain saidI’m just explaining to you that net zero co2 emissions doesn’t mean no co2 in the atmosphere, what h is what you seemed to think.
Right. What is the specified target? How is that determined?
21 Mar 23
@metal-brain saidHow on earth did you get that from my reply to you?
That would mean if we procrastinate long enough net zero would be a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than it would be if we started now. Right?