It's a Joke because it's a complete freaking fantasy. All models in it are built on the basis of deus ex machine like tech fixes and singularity like tech events that are going to happen within 10 years - none of which exists in reality.
Seriously who wouldn't call a companies future forecast report a complete joke if it built on the fact the said company would magically invent the most revolutionary technology ever built and capitalising on it?
This results in reports that give of the impression that "yeah it's not good, but we will probably manage", while climate science consensus for years, and increasingly is way, way more dark, and now bordering on the outright dystopic.
This in turn is now leading us to a scenario where extinction is on the horizon.
Listen, we are facing an extinction event, we could face it very soon, collapse is right around the corner. There is absolutely no time left. IPCC is greenwashing, it's hopium, it's berucratic circus while we are slowly sinking.
There is no time for compromise and political theatre. Everything is going in the wrong direction pollution wise, and everything is happening faster than expected.
As a side note I would have slapped myself and called me a doomer freak If I read this 6 months ago.
The IPCC report is not "a complete joke". Nothing in it requires the invention of radical new technology. We're not talking about needing some kind of ATMOS silver bullet. The reality is that there's alot of work to implement it, and it may not get done on time, but it's also not impossible (yet).
The technical challenges of moving to a renewable energy economy are doable, it's the political problem of forcing entire sectors of the economy worth hundreds of billions of dollars to replace themselves or drop out of existence.
I am looking forward to the ride ahead - whether it's bumpy or far worse.
Hard work will be required from us as a society and personally as individuals.
“All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot project the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the order of 100–1000 GtCO2 over the 21st century. CDR would be used to compensate for residual emissions and, in most cases, achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak”
It’s a pretty tall order considering that emissions are still accelerating
“Pathways reflecting current nationally stated mitigation ambition until 2030 are broadly consistent with cost-effective pathways that result in a global warming of about 3°C by 2100, with warming continuing afterwards“
“Reversing warming after an overshoot of 0.2°C or larger during this century would require upscaling and deployment of CDR at rates and volumes that might not be achievable given considerable implementation challenges”