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
and 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-to 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 objectives mentioned above.

The reasoning leads the authors to the conclusion
that the faster and more thoroughly the greenhouse
emissons 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 assumtion 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 degees 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 dynamics between
dismantling fossil-fuel emissions all together,
and simultaneously, perform negative emissions
results in something of a trap.

Despite the pledges made by many countries at
the Climate summit in Paris, 2015, greenhouse
gas emissions, as well as new investments in oil,
gas and coal continue to rise.

There´s a steady growth in the use of fossil-free
energy alternatives, though the point where it
leads to a decrease in the consumtion of fossil-
fuels has not yet been reached; as a result, there´s
a continuous increase in the concentration of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The difficulties in achieving a global coordination
on the reduction of greenhouse gases, has lead to
intensified discussions on combining increased
efforts in keeping them in the ground, with negative
emissions; accepting then, the probability for a
slower pace of reduction.

The dilemma i further complicated by the fact that
the capacity to catch and store greenhouse gases in
the ground, is by far not yet developed to an extent
that match present needs; even less so those of the
coming decades.

Plants, lakes and the seas catch and store enormous
amounts of greenhouse gases, though its uncertain
of massive re-forestation would give more than a
limited relief; not even the seas seem able to
neutralize the growing amounts of gases added to
the atmosphere.

The dilemma seems obvious: if we accept continuous
and growing emissions of greenhouse gases, on the
assumtion that in the near future they will be
neutralized by negative emissions, there´s a high risk
that Global warming will be beyond our control.

Negative emissions have a very important role to play
as momentary stabilizers with one sole purpose:
to facilitate the only reasonable and secure way to stop
and possibly reverse Global warming: a fast and
decisive winding up of fossil-fuels as a source of energy,
and its continuous and gradual replacement by fossil-
free energy techniques.