And the total amount ever burnt goes as the area under this curve.
So let's say in 2010 we had decided instead of growing at
3% per year we would cut emission by about 2% per year.
That way the emission flux would sort of drop in this gradual sort of way,
and the total area under this curve would come in at about 1,000 gigatons of carbon.
If we wait longer, we have to cut more quickly in order for
the total area under the curve to stay under 1,000 gigatons.
So here's a plot of the percent per year cuts
that would be required in order to keep to 1,000 gigatons of carbon for
the total slug as a function of the year that they start.
So, starting in 2010 cuts of about 2% per year would have done it.
2020 we would have to cut by 4% per year,
2030 about 10% per year and pretty soon by around 2040 or so, basically you
would have to cut cold turkey to keep under 1,000 gigatons of carbon.
So it's kind of like, you're in an army and your sergeant,
he's caught you doing something wrong, he says, drop and give me 20 push-ups.
Or, if you don't want to do them today, you can do them tomorrow but
you've gotta do 40, or you can do them this weekend, but you've gotta do 100.
So what are you gonna do?
It's much easier, cheaper to convert our energy infrastructure at
a slow rate of a few percent per year, because that's kind of the rate
at which power plants become obsolete and need to be replaced anyway.
Whereas if you wait until the end,
you've got to basically build everything all from scratch all at once.
It's a much bigger and more expensive proposition.
[MUSIC]
