> It is too late to adopt 0 emmisions as the entite strategy.
What does "too late" mean here? Certainly it's too late to recover species which have already gone extinct, and it would be too late to avoid some increase in drought, wild fires, floods, etc that we're already seeing, but there's a pretty big delta between the climate that we'll leave our grandchildren if we zero our emissions by 2050 versus the climate we'll leave our grandchildren if we continue polluting.
Too late as in we have already started implementing (C).
> but there's a pretty big delta between the climate that we'll leave our grandchildren if we zero our emissions by 2050 versus the climate we'll leave our grandchildren if we continue polluting.
That is not the distinction being discussed. What is being discussed is net-zero vs net-zero plus active countermeasures.
> As for (A), I'm sure we're all ears.
Several ideas are being researched, but at the moment I have not seen any that inspire confidence to become fully viable. Combined with the hardship associated with (C), this is why (B) seems necessary.
What does "too late" mean here? Certainly it's too late to recover species which have already gone extinct, and it would be too late to avoid some increase in drought, wild fires, floods, etc that we're already seeing, but there's a pretty big delta between the climate that we'll leave our grandchildren if we zero our emissions by 2050 versus the climate we'll leave our grandchildren if we continue polluting.
As for (A), I'm sure we're all ears.