If we stop emitting... then what..? 

Huge thanks to climate scientists Joeri Rogelj - twitter.com/JoeriRogelj/ - and Andrew Dessler - twitter.com/AndrewDessler - for looking over the script for this video! Give them a follow - you're sure to learn loads!

I got news for all the younger people. The older generation isn’t going to stop. They don’t care about you.

Right now, 88% of CO2 emissions in Canada are due to wildfires. I don't have global numbers. Doing something about this should be a priority.

This is exactly the same advice as 40 years ago and now me emit about 80% more CO2 than we did back then and our yearly output keeps increasing. If we carry on following this advice we will be emitted over 66 giga tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The fossil fuel moguls of today are the same as the tobacco companies of the 1960's. They know it is bad for us but they will do everything in their power to ensure we carry on spending money harming our future.

I have always respected Adam's perspective, but my crush on him just keeps growing and it's not okay

Thank you for the video, Adam. I have three questions (I'm not a climate scientist): 1) In Hansen et al. preprint, they show (fig. 13) that current emission levels are associated with 2.5C warming. Isn't this an indication that we have a lot of "committed warming" in the pipeline (i.e., the equilibrium temperature given ~420 ppm is about 2.5C; therefore, there is a lag between the current and equilibrium temperature)? 2) In the same paper (and if I understand correctly), they propose a new climate sensitivity. Instead of 0.8 W/m2, they argue that the right value is 1.2 W/m2. If this is correct (and if we accept the findings from the seminal Solomon's paper on the irreversibility of past emissions), doesn't it imply that temperatures will go up much higher than .3C even if we stop emissions now? 3) Many people talk about CO2 equivalent, but I wonder if all the effects from other GHGs are included to estimate climate sensitivity and forcing. I've seen NOAA claim we're currently at 523 ppm (which is pretty close to 2XCO2 (Hansen and colleagues argue that current forcing levels are above 4 W/m2, which is already equivalent to 2XCO2). Are equilibrium warming models accounting for CO2eq (and not CO2 only)? Thank you, and keep up the excellent work.

How much land has been covered by concrete, planet wide?

Thank you. You are a needed content provider.

did adam mention anything about tipping points having noticably already been reached in certain places? Like canada's boreal forest has flipped to a carbon source, as has parts of the amazon, and permafrost and other methane sources are already eclipsing human emissions now, so I think the fact he hasn't mentioned that at some point, the world takes over from human sources and eclipses the output kinda makes this sound like he's trying to tamp down on panic, or mention that things are still salvagable.

Very useful - thanks Climate Adam!

I love the "media missing" part on carbon sucking from atmosphere, well done! :)

This is seriously good. Thank you!

5:00 the media pending joke was hilarious! :D :D

Great stuff, Adam. Thank you

Is it possible to do a Q&A about climate change? I personally have some niche question that I can't find the answers for on the internet and the way you present climate change is very funny and informative. I would love to see something like that in the future

NOAA CO2 sensors could not detect the missing emission back in 2020 during the COVD shutdowns. EIA estimated global fossil fuel consumption went down by 6% to 8%. They admit, they can not detect this change in consumption.

is it true that according to current best understanding, it takes ~37.5 years for 60% of the warming from emissions to take place due to the thermal inertia of the oceans? so some of the observed warming (

Great video

Good info

It would be interesting if you could talk about the geo-political implications of climate change, personally I think it veers between crisis and opportunity.

Thanks for this informative video.

Thank you! You mentioned nuclear, but ""on both costs and speed, renewable energy sources beat nuclear. Every euro invested in new nuclear plants thus delays decarbonization compared to investments in renewable power. In a decarbonizing world, delays increase CO2 emissions." (Joule Volume 7, Issue 8, 16 August 2023, Pages 1675-1678). Maybe you could make a video about nuclear? Thanks again and all the best from Finland!

Scientific education is the best way to help the public make informative decisions about their politicians and carbon footprint. Cheers to making great videos like this!

I love the glass/straw/plant pot analogy. May steel that!:)

Thank you so much! I have asked this myself multiple times in the last years, but wasn't able to find a proper answer. Now I know it :)

Amazing presentation. And great collection of tees. PhD huh? Just shows the deeper you go, the more bogged down you get. But life is for learning, so keep on finding new questions please!

You're a precious youtuber. Thanks.

odd... a comment i posted yesterday is gone; it had a link to one of the papers you find if you go to the carbon brief link and keep digging down until you find the paper that i think describes what the models that are the basis for the idea that the earth will certainly draw down CO2 once emissions stop, but i'm a little unclear on what they are basing the sinks on... e.g., it seems they account for phytoplankton but from when? they ref papers from the 1980s all the way to 2000s, with quite a few in the 1990s... so, e.g., are they basing it on how phytoplanton existed/operated/absorbed CO2 back then or did they account for warming waters in some cases killing many of them off? How much paleo data did they use? be nice to see a video on this since some of the papers that seem to lay this out are pay blocked (again starting from links provided here for Carbon Brief and then following them down...) in short, as others in the comments have asked, how did they account for the "behavior" of global carbon sinks changing as the drawn down occurs

People have said that other people said that the arctic would already be gone by 2013. Was there never such a prediction to begin with or did these doomsday predictions fail because humanity did something right about climate change?

Excellent video. But a wee nitpick. You do say that we need to reduce emissions by transitioning to renewables. However there is a much easier way to reduce emissions by reducing or eliminating needless consumption. This could have several times the effectiveness compared with transitioning but is nearly always overlooked. Keep up the good videos

I just noticed your hair. I think in the next decade people will buzz all their hair clean, real talk.

We need more videos like this.....and climate action from politicians

Look at US temp data. We passed the tipping point long ago

great presentation. Sometimes we get push back for smiling through the terrible news we're talking about. You've managed to walk the line...thanks!

Thank you for work, Adam! Your efforts in communicating scientific knowledge is really remarkable. It's engaging and make it seem a bit less hopeless, the skill I can't boast with :-) Keep it up.

This is only the second despair letter on the youtube channel of someone who discusses climate change and it probably won't be the last. But first, time to rant about everything in my life that wrong to give me a bad attitude to use in the fight against climate change. Well, one thing is, that as a child, I had far too much success ad dodging the eating of vegetables, so now I would have to intensely train of my gag reflex during the simple act of eating a cucumber. Then, video games. (I've got to change my profile pic asap) My great grandmother used to warn me it would turn me into a loner, I cried about it and got my first nintendo DS anyway. But it took a while to make me friendless, and it was when my grades in school turned worse that I retreated into gaming and lost all of my friends, even though some of them were gamers, making all of this extra stupid. Then after finishing school, It took a year for me to find any idea on what to do next. Also, there was a period of time where I heard the sentence "you're bound to have to do thing you don't like" and instead of examining whether my complaints were valid or just whining, I decided to completely shatter all of my self-esteem. Also, a lot of wasted time in online arguments, but never in real ones. Then I went to this "Job-Training-Boarding school" or however you'd call it in english (which was far away from my home and I stupidly insisted on being driven from home and not get only fetched every second weekend, but every weekend) I had an opportunity to make friends there and did have casual friendly chats with the other people there, but I inhibited my efforts, because it would crumble at graduating from the job training. Then after that was over I send out applications like crazy, but was either rejected or failed a job interview. Also my last great grandmother (not the one that warned about video games) died and I had a huge mortality-based existential crisis, which I solved by finally writing my fantasy novel ideas, but I wouldn't be writing this huge comment, if that still worked. Then I went to some other program that was supposed to help me finally get a job, but it completely failed, by it being more about making decorations about chestnuts, holding presentations about the countries of the world or discussions about pretty much anything. I tried to suggest useful stuff, but the permanent digressions made me slowly give up. And I tried and failed to get my drivers license over a long period of time, wasting huge amounts of my familys money in the process. And even before deciding whether I should write that fantasy book (I swapped between persuading and dissuading myself) I decided I should read as many different pieces of fiction as possible, causing my "story consumerism" to baloon up even further, than it would've had I just remained a casual viewer. Currently I'm reading quite a few manga series both physically (and still have to catch up to one piece) and digitally on manga plus. Everyone in a while I go on quitting sprees and it deflates, but it's less like quitting an addiction and more like giving up on a difficult task. And in the final job training year, I had an expecially rough and tough educator, that made me feel very bad about myself. Also, I supressed my rage at two arguably far-right guys discussing some very disgusting stuff out of fear of being labeled an SJW. And now to the parts directly connected to climate change. There was this older guy (boomer, as he himself called this), who turned this into a club of discussions at the trainees suggestion,(even though a pamphlet about the whole thing said, the counselors or whatever were supposed to do preparations), most of the times it was political discussions where he complained about political correctness and the like and when it came to climate change he flip-flopped between "throw away you phones, they weren't produced environmentally friendly!", "somewhere, they remove chunks of their own island and sell it" "the biggest climate sinner is earth itself, it would heat, even if we did nothing!", "Those people that glue themselves on the street actually make me care less about earth", "greta thunberg is just a famousness tool by her parents, protecting herself via ableism accusations and also travels in environmentally unfriendly ways!", "but make no mistake, my generation made climate change a topic", "netflix and streaming services are very bad for the environment" so during that I watched a bunch of videos on environmentalism focused on individual actions, before crumbling under the pressure and succumbing to apathy, until recent news about flooding. I tried to watch more videos on general solutions, since knowing that it's bad is something that I don't need, I need to know what to actually do. But now, I am once again, about to crumble. Am I really worth anything, if I don't dedicate everything in my life to fighting climate change? Is it immoral to write a fantasy story, that isn't attempting to be a better captain planet? I feel insane guilt over my book reading even? (Expecially Blue Lock, which argues Egoism makes a good soccer striker and egoism is a bad personality trait causing this crisis, though I started it thinking it would somehow teach me independence, but invoking an "x piece of fiction saved my life" doesn't work if you try causing it intentionally) Hearing about family members installing electrically adjustable blinds and chairs makes my stomach churn. When I told my grandmother I didn't want to go on an international vacations out of climate concerns, she just responded with "But your (divorced) father is going on vacations more often than you". I s it okay to discuss societal issues outside of the context of "it indirectly helps solve climate change, because war emits lots of CO2 or because discriminated groups can fight climate (and the nations not at fault will drown first)"? Because I feel like I would scream at people "care about climate change instead!", whether I was the inactive, apathetic self or an active fighter against climate change. I just want to yell at everyone to care more. TL;DR, I suffer from depression and severe self-worth issues and feel kinda suicidal even before getting climate anxiety, but I can feel myself wanting an excuse to do nothing and life my normal life. Also, my job training was for office stuff, so my screentime and energy consumption will only shift, not decrease. And, well that book would've been a long running series, so not good for the climate either. But I'm almost 1000 pages into it (trying to finish it before splitting it up) and me finally putting my mind to writing it, is a big factor that sustains my will to live, but now I feel like I'm harming the planet with it.

Your channel deserves rapid growth! Your videos are witty and informative whilst handling some quite doomful topics

Aerosol masking? MEER project? Prof Guy McPherson’s review of only peer reviewed papers… live your best life as it’s not going to stop.

Ice melting means more dark surfaces where solar radiation can be absorbed. Meaning more heating... This is one way that Earth will keep on warming after we shutdown ghg emissions. Same goes for sea ice. And so many other things. But they start balancing sooner, when we stop emissions.

Good video, but we must also address permafrost, which emits methane. I lok forward to future videos.

Nice shot of water vapour coming out of chimneys at 5:42. Isn't that a greenhouse gas as well? Why was life flourishing on earth during the Cambrian period when CO2 levels were at 7000ppm, 15x higher than today?

The analogy i use is GHG is a blanket , like a blanket you do not immediately reach equilibrium and warm up instantly . Anyway GHG are rising at there fastest ever rate and atm methane levels are exploding as it looks like wetlands are drying up..a tipping point is being passed .Also water vapour is a GHG and that's rising too .Also its no good the oceans absorbing more heat and CO2 because of ocean acidification ,,,

As a current master’s student, I hate to say it but, we’ve already done massive amounts of damage that may not be fixable any time soon. Even in the best case scenario of we stop all emissions tomorrow, there’s still a lot we just can’t fix. And as disheartening as that is, waiting is only going to increase that damage and make things worse.

Bracing for impact.

Even if global warming were to plateau some decades after the world's net emissions reached zero, some tipping elements like tropical coral reefs might take centuries or millennia to recover. Maybe there will gradually be new coral reefs in places at a higher latitude, but places like the Philippines where I live might lose a lot of our fish breeding grounds and marine biodiversity. I hope scientists in places like Australia, where the Great Barrier Reef faces similar issues can come up with countermeasures that can be implemented in places like our near shore areas. We have marine science researchers too, but probably not as high-powered as in other countries with advanced science and tech.

love our induction hob

At the end you finally mention feedback loops. How would it stabilize if it has or will triggered enough feedback loops?

Good to hear this but a question - what % of CO2 emissions are anthropogenic?

Can the oceans and land reach saturation point ? In terms of CO2

one issue is the amount of we'd need to emit creating enough renewable infrastructure, but that's all the more reason to do it sooner rather than later

Thanks for the video! Always love the content. Question, have you ever made a video where you engage with the ideas of "energy philosopher" Alex Epstein, author of "Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less?" I think that'd be interesting.

Is it possible that the content of this video is only right if we ignore the tipping points? What I mean is: If we stopped emitting all greenhouse gases today, not just the glaciers would still melt, but also the permafrost, giving off more and more greenhouse gases, and the rainforest would still gradually die, giving off more and more greenhouse gases etc. Which would in turn heat up the globe some more and so on. Right? Or did I miss something?

We'll only stop poluting when we are dead. We're going off the climate cliff like Thelma and Louise.

Adam I'd love to hear you talk about the other half of climate change drivers: the Small Water Cycle. It' gets very little attention, partly because it's harder to model. But it's very accessible for almost everybody to productively, even joyfully, contribute to its repair and benefit from the improvements it brings.

📍6:05

This is only true if you discount decreasing sea ice, more water area from rising oceans, increased wild fires will increase CO2, melting permafrost will increase methane, methane hydrates will decompose and come out of the oceans, and about a dozen other natural feedbacks that would continue to raise the global temperatures for centuries after the end of burning oil. Adam wants you to focus on emissions instead of the energy imbalance. The energy imbalance is what causes global warming, not emissions alone. Even if human CO2 and CH4 emissions went to zero over night, there would still be an increased amount of CO2 and CH4 entering the atmosphere from these natural sources. Stopping emissions doesn’t unmelt ice and permafrost.

50% correct sadly 50% wrong.

water vapor is not important?

Coal?

gud vid thx

Seaweed/kelp farming is one of the most promising solutions for pretty large scale carbon removal. But even that is tiny compared to fossil burning that is record high as we speak. Oil demand is at record high too. August 2023 we hit 1,5C and El Niño is just starting to show its might. In coming years, we will end much over 1,5C warming by 30 year averages. And we are heading to 3-4C world by 2100 (given pledges are failing and not sanctioned). Keep in mind that every 0,1C warming means 100 million deaths (many recent studies points that way). Also don't forget aerosol effects after dirty fossil fuel burning is shutdown. IPCC predicts it to be 0,6C, while Hansen says its much higher. So we are currently with aerosol effect at 1,8-2,55C. Paris goals are not reachable anymore without nonexisting, not even in laboratory experiments, large ghg removal schemes.

Decent video, although it didn't point out that CO2 normally has a base level in the atmosphere without help from fossil fuels, which is okay. The goal being that photosynthesis keeps up with CO2 emitted, from breathing for example. Yes, planting trees was mentioned, but it's more complicated than that. Regenerative agriculture is important, biodiversity is as well. Retraining farmers how to grow crops without relying on plowing the fields, so as to retain the mycelium network is a part of it. Stopping the Amazon Rainforest from being destroyed is a part of it. Kelp and other seaweed farms for absorbing CO2 in the ocean is as well. Then again, if various patents for zero-point energy were declassified, making them available for use now, we could get to energy independence from fossil fuels much faster.

And when the co2 starts to diminish the plants will stop proliferating and we will have less food and we will have to resort to more dense nutrition like meat.

For the aerosol masking effect, based on the shipling industry and how it heats up short term, couldn't we balance it out by painting roofs white? Sort of an artificial glacier in cities and towns in terms of cooling the world? And save money on heating On a side note, i think i found out why politicians aren't doing enough (this is mostly a joke), lead poisoning from lead pipes apparently takes like 60 years to have real effects. And politicians are usually rather old. Coincidence? I think not!

Oven analogy? Does not equate!!! While the oven's dial controls the amount of gas being burned (or electricity wattage pumped in), GHG is just more like a blanket than an oven's dial. And it is a very thin blanket at that, since out of 342w/m2 from the sun, the blanket only slows down exit of that by 2 to 3 watts/m2. Or just 0.9% of the average incoming insolation. The CO2 AGW hypothesis in fact requires water vapor feedback to work. Without water vapor, the current warming is too hot for CO2 to be the sole factor. Oven analogy is more akin to solar insolation than GHG back radiation.

What's happening right now is instead of using alternative energy to replace fossil fuels. We are finding new and inventive ways to waste electricity. So we are at the same time increasing alternative energy while burning more fossil fuels

A solar boson collides with a Carbon Dioxide (44gmw) molecule in the long path (270 k) atmospheric, circumference ring. Displacing an O8 atom and activating an Up Quark- Down Quark shift in the remaining , unstable, CO 6-8 , 12/16 -(28gmw) molecule, transferring a neutron /electron pair from the O8 and adding it to the C6 to form a stable , balanced N2 (28gmw) 2N7 molecule. The UV emission(235) being half the original double electron IR (470) emission.

Love the tee shirt

Over -development is creating huge heat islands in the American Southwest. Such as Phoenix AZ. With 32 days of greater than 110 farhenheit this summer,we need to address this. Construction continues unabated. his process

Omg you have an induction stove with actual physical knobs!!!! That is so cool! Hashtag kitchengoals! (I'm being unironically excited here) Great video, educational and entertaining as always :)

If only we had responsible adults in command, then we could say that we chose to do "not so much". Next, together with that comes the duty to help those who are hit by climate change. It would still be an unpleasant situation but if we can survive on Mars "soon" we survive on a hotter earth. The word is of course "survive" and much less"enjoy life". I don't know if we collectively made this choice. There was hardly an alternative .Only with COVID became it clear that people don't always need to be physically present at work. I even wonder if today it's not possible that qualified people give orders to less qualified but nearby living people with monitoring via bodycam.

At net-zero, the average surface temperature may stabilize but the earth will continue to gain heat, which goes into melting ice and warming the deep oceans. The sea level will continue to rise and the oceans will continue to acidify. Decarbonization is not a complete solution. We need to focus on creating abundant, cheap and clean energy. Current nuclear fission technologies have the potential to provide the energy we need to adapt to climate change. But we need nuclear regulations based on fact instead of irrational fears.

Hooray for specialists

But you know we won't stop, it's time to be serious and to accept reality even we hate it.

Maybe you've already done/are doing a video on this, but I'd love to see your response to the idea that CO2 is greening the planet (obviously plants use CO2, but the implication from climate change deniers is that this alleged increased uptake will essentially fix our mess and halt/reverse CO2 induced global heating.) Great video btw.

One of the good things I get from a video like this is it reminds me that climate scientists have already thought of the questions that arise in my mind. Of course they have - they're professional climate scientists, it's their job and their passion to think of these things, and they've thought of everything I have, plus a whole, whole lot more - but it's reassuring to see those questions asked and answered. A side note; at 6:08 Adam says losing the aerosols would cause 'an immediate bump in warming', which I guess is the same as 'an immediate bump in forcing', so he's right, but I think it sounds too much like 'an immediate bump in warmth', which would be incorrect. Climate science, even at my layman's level, is so slippery!

So you don't believe that we have hit such tipping points as ongoing methane release from the permafrost or that the oceans and forests are about to reach saturation?

All parking lots need minimum 30% tree cover also they need to use thirsty concrete. On the off ramp you see full of rocks fill it with native plant life and trees all from seed and forget maintenance it's unnecessary. Also better insulation in homes in places that gets tornados don't use wood but rock brick or metal or something that won't be destroyed. Don't forget Saguaro cactus native to my state are edible well the fruits are not the cactus and the fruits are barriers not fruits lol but we grow/farm none and it's confusing on why.

What about positive feedback loops that are triggered by rising temperatures? We will reach a point where the feedback loops are in control of warming by releasing greenhouse gasses from natural sources like permafrost, causing additional warming.

Carbon does not heat the asphalt which heats the air and Gulf Stream.

If we could set the concentration of CO2 at any level we chose, what level would that be? What is the ideal level of CO2 in the atmosphere? What is the ideal level for global temperature, for human health, for plants? Are these values different? What is the overall best value taking these all into consideration?

Great explanation of what happens when we stop emitting. I especially liked knowing that the heat-bump caused by losing the aerosols are included in the forecast for what happens if we stop emitting. I don't care for the reference to nuclear, that industry is just a boondoggle of government funding to keep the nuclear ideologists happy. Wind, solar, water, and storage are much faster and cheaper.

Do the Sink example again , set it so that there is 420 ounces in the sink. then adjust the inflow so it is in balance with the out flow so that 420 ounces stays suspended in the sink bowl while the water is running. Thats what we have on earth with Co2 . next drop .000000000001 parts of red dye into the water. This will represent Carbon 14. The only way to dilute the Carbon 14 by 3/4th is to also remove 3/4th of the carbon 12 down the drain from the inflow.

Yo, what's with that TEE? You need to wash with hotter water. Even if it's not the greenest choice.

For some reason, I have never seen this explained before. It is really important information. Now for some more general feedback: I can only speak for myself, but I am here for the information and not because I am looking for entertainment. I would not mind if you and other RU-vidrs who create similar videos were to cut down on the jokes a bit. (Compare: I follow the news from the war in Ukraine on a daily basis and the commentators will always simply try to explain things in a straight way. Jokes can occur but are not very common and are done in a way that avoids distracting from the seriousness of the subject.)

Adam(s) didn't mention the mystery of the accelerating atmospheric methane level which may indicate that we have already triggered a dangerous positive feedback.

When the titanic sank, the wise and powerful fled to the highest point,thus insuring their comfort till the last possible moment.

*There is a reason why we continue to burn more and more fossil fuels:* "Falling EROI due to depletion of high-quality fossil fuel resources also poses a difficult challenge for industrial economies, and could potentially lead to declining economic output and challenge the concept ... of perpetual economic growth."-Energy return on investment. (2023, August 24). In Wikipedia. So, constrained growth means that to build out green infrastructure (and also rebuild it) we will have to find a way to make things with *low-entropy non-emitting energy sources that do not make demands on materials that are hard to recycle.* The scale of energy extracted from fossils is very large. There is no alternative source except nuclear power.

Nothing Happens.

Your overlay is misleading. Some people will think that if we do gradual transition we'll stabilize a 1.5 while if we just actually stop we'll stabilize at 1.7. Why no puting the same numbers?

We need more co2. Too much is trapped.

If greenhouse gas emissions went to zero overnight then temps would pretty much stop rising. That's because although oceans take a long time to fully reflect atmospheric warming they, and other sinks, would be absorbing atmospheric CO2, reducing it's concentration and so reducing the forcing. According to latest science (and it seems Adam doesn't know this) these effects will balance out. Temperatures would not fall though for centuries. Caveat - runaway methane emissions from biogenic sources may take over! Note, sea levels will continue to rise for millennium even if temps remain stable. Oops, just watched the next bit and Adam makes this exact point.

Does ANYONE think it’s possible to get the USA, China, and India to bring their emissions to zero? Nope. Never. The feedback loop is set, it’s only a matter of time now.

Nov. 22, 2009 - In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions - the major cause of global warming - cannot be stabilized unless the world’s economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day. Garrett treats civilization like a “heat engine” that “consumes energy and does ‘work’ in the form of economic production, which then spurs it to consume more energy,” he says. “If society consumed no energy, civilization would be worthless,” he adds. “It is only by consuming energy that civilization is able to maintain the activities that give it economic value. This means that if we ever start to run out of energy, then the value of civilization is going to fall and even collapse absent discovery of new energy sources.”

What about the background energy radiation that is rising in the part of the universe where our milky way/galaxy is moving into ?

💚

What happens to methane? Does it decay into, oh , I don’t know, carbon dioxide?

Mostly they talk about "net zero" not stop emitting altogether. That "net" counts *all* carbon sinks. It's pure fantasy to imagine politicians and corporations won't count all those sinks -they are far more likely to count them multiple times over! Even if we stopped all emissions it's not at all certain that the natural carbon sinks are still viable.

When we get to the point where we are holding CO2 levels steady this would be a good discusssion. First we need to reduce the CO2 emissions. We need to be committed both to reduction on a national level and on a personal level. That means YOU! Almost everyone in the worst emitting countries could cut their emissions by 5% with no impact on lifestyle. Many could do 10%. The time to start doing this was 10 years ago but starting as soon as you finish reading this would also be good. Sit down with your family and list where your current emissions are coming from - then figure out what you can painlesssly reduce. Make it a challenge, even a game, You do not need to do any complex caculations. Keep it simple (and cheap). If you make 20 car journies per week could you cut one? Or double up? Or car pool? If your drive is on open roads then cut the speed by 5%. If you city drive then turn off the ignition at lights and do not accelerate hard. When you get used to these new habits they actually make driving easier, more relaxing plus you save money on fuel. Car use is easy to quantify but many people already have their backs to the wall with power usage in the home. Do what you can. If you have no room for manouevre there, then plant some trees, grow your own vegetables. Turn off your TV, computer or game console and go for a walk! ( YES, I said walk, terrifying isn't it?). Avoid products where there are excessive emissions in the production process. Like greenhouse tomatoes. The trick is just to keep it top of mind - you will find ways. Good Luck.

So - how much ist it? Aerosol Masking Effect = 0.5K???? Or what is the number?