Are you trolling? It just requires on the order of 1x GDP to install enough renewables and storage to start reversing climate change.

It is totally doable, but people are just trying to skirt the costs of climate neutrality.

And what storage mechanism are you imaging? People fail to realize that only ~300 GWh of batteries are produced each year, as compared to 60TWh daily electricity use (and about twice that much in terms of total energy use). Even attempt to install just one hour of storage capacity would require several times more storage than is produced globally.

Any serious attempt at producing grid storage would lead to shortages and increases in prices. This is why plans for a renewable grid assume that some heretofore unused storage mechanism - like hydrogen storage, compressed air, or giant flywheels - will make energy storage nearly free. Because existing storage mechanisms can't be produced at scale.

He's not. Zero emissions today, while impossible, would not remove gases from the atmosphere in a meaningful way, also something we cannot presently accomplish.

Past emissions will stay for centuries and increase heating globally for centuries to come.

All the reports stop at 2050 to 2100, but none of them have any sort of peak temperature in sight.

The extremes of today are only the very beginning.

if by storage you mean batteries, are you sure that their production/usage/recycling makes up for the environmental cost of producing/recycling them?

I am all in for green energy but we have to be honest and estimate well, otherwise we will simply continue as we are now (if not make matters worst)

A common trope is "this replacement (nuclear/wind/solar) isn't perfect so lets keep building fossil fuels"

Every 1kwh produced by a windmill is 1kwh less of oil being burnt. We don't exactly have an abundance of energy at the moment, there's no excuse not to be diverting vast amounts of planetary resources into renewable production.

I am certain that is the case for batteries. Recycling is always easier than digging up and processing the rocks which contain a few percent by weight of each relevant element, and they're already a net win (with regards to CO2) even if you do that.

> Recycling is always easier than digging up

Easier? Most of stuff that is supposed to be recycled ends up in landfills.

reversing what? I just mentioned the CO2 is already out there. How do you put the genie back in the bottle?

> trolling

Please don't call others for your own behavior.

We can do plenty to stop it getting worse (and in fact are).

There are also plenty of ways to take CO2 out of the air (several of which literally grow on trees, or are trees), the question for both organic and technological CO2 sequestration is economics.

For a sense of scale, human emissions are about 40 Gt CO2, global primary production is 104.9 Pg, so making the world about 10% more fertile would have the same effect as decarbonising the economy, or equivalently remove 1 year of existing excess carbon if we also decarbonised the economy: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2840%20Gt%20%2F%20mass...

(10% is a lot, but not so much it would be crazy to consider).

> There are also plenty of ways to take CO2 out of the air (several of which literally grow on trees, or are trees), the question for both organic and technological CO2 sequestration is economics.

As you mentioned none of them are currently economical. You can't drive such a thing if it does not make sense financially.