The increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere makes the climate of the Earth
unstable. There´s a concrete risk that the effect will
be irreversible, in the sense that the changes will be
beyond human control. A very large majority of the
World´s leading climate scientists agree on that.

From what I understand the scientists regard the
combination of three decisive actions as essential to
prevent that:

-a fast reduction of the greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere aiming at a complete stop of all
emissions.
-secondly, that the present amount of greenhouse
gases already emitted into the atmosphere, and the
amount that will be emitted under the transformative
period, to the highest degree possible will be stored
in plants and deep down in the Earth; defined as
"negative emissions".
-and thirdly, that fossil-free techniques for generating
energy will constitute a continually growing part of the
Worlds energy production.

If these three approaches are integrated and as far as
possible adjusted to each other, there are according to
the climate scientists, a resonable possiblity to limit the
rise in global temperature to 1,5-2 degrees C until 2050.

The British magazine, The Economist, makes in its
theme-issue on the climate crisis, "The Climate Issue",
article: "What goes up", September 21st to 27th , 2019,
a very interesting reasoning on how these three
methods relate to each other, seen in the perspective
of the objective mentioned above.

The reasoning leads the authors to the conclusion that
the faster and more thoroughly the greenhouse
emissions are cut down, the less need for negative
emissions; to catch and store the gases in plants or in
the earth.

In their scenario they work with the assumption
of 2055 as the year when zero emissions ought to have
been reached.; a goal built on the premisies that by 2050
the average global temperature shall not exceed 1,5
degrees C; in accord then, with a 50% reduction
from present levels by the year 2030.

Their reasoning also leads them to what they regard as
a dilemma, as the dynamic between dismantling fossil-
fuel emissions all together, and simultaneously, perform
negative emissions, results in somthing of a trap.