It's an inflection point, not a zero point. GP's emphasis on the word "acceleration" above is to distinguish the two.

Rallying is an inflection point, turning the tide is a zero point. Rallies suffer from survivorship bias -- you don't hear praises and songs for the rallies that failed. It's not enough to assume blind hope, we have to recognize the forces stacked against us and be very strategic going forward. This requires massive sacrifice, including those comfortably sitting in the war rooms and atop guarded positions.

When a pendulum swings, consider the momentum as it passes over its equilibrium. We are approaching that equilibrium point, and if you look at global renewables deployment, EV uptake, and CO2/methane emissions reduction efforts, we are about to leave that equilibrium point headed in the other direction at full speed. Major sacrifice will not be needed, except perhaps with regards to meat consumption as the world gets wealthier.

Certainly, we should not rest on our laurels and should keep the pedal to the floor, but the data shows we are moving the needle.

> In this report, we find there is a 70% chance that emissions start falling in 2024 if current clean technology growth trends continue and some progress is made to cut non-CO2 emissions. This would make 2023 the year of peak emissions – meeting the IPCC deadline.

Let’s get to 100% as soon as possible.

Your grasp of physics metaphors leaves a lot to be desired. That's not how momentum works. Plus, the pendulum reference implies swinging back across to net-positive carbon emissions, which I don't think is part of anyone's plan.

What we want is a critically damped system, that inflects ASAP and approaches zero the quickest. Again, this requires a better grasp of the issues than "EVs will save the world". Our conveniences are the problems that need solving. Everyone who has the systems view (as opposed to the extremely narrow economics view) says we need to radically restructure our society so that lifestyles can be sustainable. This includes removing the need for most people to drive or fly, period.

  > This includes removing the need for most people to drive or fly, period.

does this imply that most co2 emissions are caused by cars and consumer flying?

No, but there are many sources of emissions related to the sprawl of car-centric culture.

The connection with flying is just how much emissions can be attributed to one passenger in a plane compared to an equivalent drive. When you fly you're trading more emissions for speed and convenience in your travels. The classic quoted stat is that a single flight is worth about a year of driving at today's averages.

The point is that is not a turning point. We are still accelerating towards a wall, and maybe, just maybe, we will just go to at a constant speed in some years. It is not slowing down, is not turning back, and the natural world and climate system is crumbling down in front of us, in a steep way, this year in particular.

Heatwaves will start to kill people big time, The Ministry for the Future style, in the next few years if not this very one. But we keep accelerating.