Peace to you. <3 I am Elia Jay Scott (she/her); a bachelor of physics and computer science with minor mathematics, NDSU 2016, and former master-student of mechanical engineering at same school; a soon-to-be bachelor of social work, UBCV 2026; the cellist-vocalist of @ELIAHAVAH on Youtube, where I make environmentalist cello cover music videos, celebrating climate activist groups; the GREEN JOBS GUARANTEE highway banner campaign Vancouver metro climate protestor (see below); the creator and current owner-operator of NetNeg2035.net; and an aspiring disciple of Love incarnate, Jesus of Nazareth.
PROTEST CANCELATIONS— (Old Mon-Wedn schedule) canceled Mar 23 Mon – June 1 Mon; (new Tues-Thur-Fri schedule) resuming June 2 Tues. I was officially warned by RCMP, on Mar 18 Wedn, that I legally cannot (A) hang my banner over the railing, nor (B) physically attach my banner to the railing; I therefore have been attempting labouriously to redesign a new banner, that can stand up on its own, so that they cannot cite me. However, despite working on this for almost a MONTH, I failed to complete a redesign, that is sturdy enough to be able to stand up to the powerful highway winds, in time to get any more protesting in, before I became unavailable, Apr 17 Fri – May 6 Wedn; and since that time, I have been dealing with other problems. But, I have made progress on the banner! I long to be getting honked and sworn at for two hours straight, again, this time thrice a week, all for the sake of the Word of Life, soon! I am greatly heartbroken by this long hiatus; but I will be resuming the protest; and I will not be stopping until we have a Green Jobs Guarantee!!!
Greenhouse gas emissions currently are RISING, meaning we are not merely heading but in fact ACCELERATING toward climate breakdown and our own self-destruction.
Once the first major synchronous multiple global agricultural breadbasket region crop failure event hits (Caparas et al, 2021; hereafter referred to as a Caparas Event), it is over for us; nine billion humans will not survive without functioning agriculture. Our food system is humanity’s greatest and most swiftly lethal vulnerability to climate change; this has been underreported criminally in the media. If CO₂ net emissions continue to increase (figure 1A right), and CO₂ cumulative concentration therefore continues to accelerate upward (figure 2A-i right), then both the probability of a Caparas Event occurring will scale according to t² (instantaneous) or t³ (time-cumulative), until it becomes statistical certainty; and the magnitude (in total crop yield deficit) of that event, when it does eventually occur, also will scale according to at least t² (and likely higher), until it becomes an extinction level event. The journalist AH Lewis said, There are nine missed meals between humankind and anarchy. Total societal collapse and world human population implosion on the gigadeath scale WILL RESULT, if we continue on our current trajectory – inevitably, with absolutely 100 % certainty, according to the unbendable, tyrannical, merciless laws of physics.
There is zero reasonable scientific doubt about this. The greenhouse effect is a LAW OF PHYSICS; every OUNCE of greenhouse gas we continue to pump into our atmosphere WILL worsen the climate crisis; there is NO CEILING on how bad it can get – other than the ceiling our mother earth herself will impose on us, by our annihilation. Anyone telling you otherwise is spreading an ECOCIDAL, OMNICIDAL LIE in the service of big oil.
The Siberian permafrost melt gas release feedback (Rößger et al, 2022) and the Amazon rainforest dieback effect (Boulton et al, 2022) both likely have been activated, or are soon to be activated, by our actions; this means that climate breakdown will accelerate EVEN FASTER. We therefore no longer have ANY TIME to spare.
WE MUST IMMEDIATELY IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING—
(1) GREEN JOBS GUARANTEE,
to create the necessary massive workforce for the rapid Green Transition, counter job-losses from outsourcing and automation/“AI”, and give everyone who needs it a decent living and a training for a living
+ (2) CONVERT POWER GRID,
to 100 % solar, wind, hydro, and (strictly regulated) nuclear
+ (3) TRANSITION TRANSPORT,
massively expand public transit in both local bus/metro and long-distance high-speed rail, enact strong EV consumer subsidy and production mandate – NO NEW GAS AUTOS, accelerate green-H₂ aviation and shipping development and infrastructure
+ (4) DAIRY/MEAT SUBSTS,
massively expand both development and production, til consumer-end prices-per-mass lower than equivalent non-plantbased dairy/meat, to support noncoërcive and affordable dietary transition
+ (5) 1 TRILLION TREES NOW,
MONITOR, MAINTAIN, AND PROTECT both all surviving old forest and new reforestation in perpetuity by international law, prosecute all ecocide-omnicide at the Hague
→ NET NEG 2035
→ LIFE.
Net Negative 2035 – preferably sooner – would be sufficient to limit CO₂ cumulative concentration to below 450 PPM, and thus global warming to below 1.75 ° C; see necessary Net Zero dates table, righthand column, below figures A and B-i. Net Negative emissions is the precondition of human survival. Anyone opposing Net Zero and Net Negative is opposing continued human existence on the planet earth.
Re # 3 above— There are valid environmental concerns surrounding EVs. However, (A) they are indisputably a harm-reduction measure, as compared against ecocidal-omnicidal GAS AUTOS, WHICH MUST END; and (B) lithium mining requirements will decrease dramaticly, once more past-warranty batteries begin entering the recycling pool.
Re # 4— Animal-agriculture is the second-largest contributor to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, by CO₂ equivalence, after fossil fuels. Moreover, its land-use impact, from feedstock, is vastly disproportionate to its caloric contribution, and is one of the leading causes of deforestation; and we require so much of that land-area back as possible, for both reforestation or other environmental restoration/augmentation (# 5), but also increasing general for-human crop volume, to potentially permit the creation of global grainstores, sufficient to buffer against a Caparas Event. (All this is to say nothing of the unspeakable cruelty of factory-farms, which should be abolished on principle alone.) There is no future where mass-scale animal-agriculture continues, and humans survive. (Steinfeld et al, 2006; Benton, Esterhazy, 2025.) The state must begin to materially support/incentivize, educate on, and otherwise generally facilitate public noncoërcive and affordable dietary transition to plantbased, with a goal of at least majority freewill adoption before the target Net Zero date, and phaseout of all dairy/meat subsidies and supported conversion of animal-agriculture infrastructure to plantbased or other production. It is okay if there are holdout consumers and producers, so long as (A) they are a shrinking minority, (B) ALL other economic sectors are fully decarbonized, and (C) carbon-sink capacity is increased sufficiently – so that any little remaining animal-agriculture is the sole residual, and is small enough to be overcome.
Re # 5— Trees are the ONLY carbon-capture technology that actually works and can be deployed at scale; but they must begin being planted NOW, so that they have time to grow to maturity and thus full absorption potential. This must be done ALONGSIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION, to begin to reverse the damage we have already done. (Lippke et al, 2021.) If another form of environmental restoration/augmentation – EG peatlands, kelp-forests, oceanic iron fertilization, etc – is found to be comparably efficacious and scalable to trees or greater, then it of course may be complemented. Ecological considerations must always be factored in (EG avoiding monocultures, not damaging/replacing other critical ecosystems, etc); and also, social considerations (IE mutually beneficial partnership with local peoples). (Clark, 2024.)
Solar radiation mitigation (SRM) is NOT a viable climate solution, and should NOT be deployed. This is because, the moment we begin deploying an SRM method, such as stratospheric ærosol injection, it risks creating a runaway effect, where the more greenhouse gas we continue to emit, the more ærosol we will need to inject to counteract it – until we run serious environmental risks, from excess reliance on this method; and any attempt to impose a safeguard cap will necessarily and definitionally cause the method to become ineffective, past a certain threshold. Furthermore, any unplanned interruption of the ærosol injection rate risks creating a termination shock, and resultant catastrophic rapid rewarming to a higher equilibrium. There are also numerous other ethical issues, around things like governance and harm attribution. (Macnaghten, Szerszynski, 2013; Jones et al, 2013.)
ONLY net emissions reduction can safely and effectively solve the climate crisis – that is (A) gross emissions reduction, plus (B) natural carbon-sink restoration/augmentation, together, to reach Net Negative emissions.
GREEN JOBS GUARANTEE
Re # 1— The GREEN JOBS GUARANTEE may be considered one aspect – the first, most important, and necessary aspect – of the larger Green New Deal concept, which also ideally would include the other four aspects of the Green Transition enumerated above.
— Not only is the Green Jobs Guarantee (A) practically requisite for us to accomplish the Green Transition, at the speed and scale at which we need to be accomplishing it, for the sake of human survival;
— not only is it (B) the perfect and timely solution to the growing economic crises of our time;
— not only is it (C) a highly economically progressive and desirable policy, in-and-of-itself and for its own sake, distributing wealth directly to the working class, giving everyone rewarding work;
— and not only will it be (D) a certain political winner, for any progressive and pro-climate political parties or actors who may advocate for it, and therefore win elections, which is required for the implementation and protection from repeal of pro-climate measures;
— but it also, crucially, in the long-term, (E) will directly materially connect the wellbeing of individual people and families to the wellbeing of our species and the biosphere, and so promote a culture of care for our planet.
If you live in the Vancouver metro area, BC, Canada, and wish to protest with me, in front of about 10’000 people/hour, all for the sake of our gorgeous planet and a livable future, come join my Green Jobs Guarantee highway banner campaign, on the Transcanada 1 Willingdon ave bridge, Burnaby, starting 2026 February 2 Presentation Monday, (new schedule) every Tues, Thur, Fri, 16:30–18:30 (EXCEPT cancelations, see above) at evening peak traffic-hour – cold, hot, wind, calm, rain, or shine!! I’ll have signmaking supplies; anyone can drop in and join me, whichever day you want, however long you want!! Nothing like a little protest, to provide a constructive outlet for your ecorage, ecogrief, and ecoänxiety, and make you feel just a little bit less powerless!!
This protest is being conducted on the rightful and unceded territory of the Xwməθkwəy’əm (Musqueam) First Nation.
Figures 1A (top), 2A-i (bottom). Our historical and current trajectory. (Keeling, Keeling, 1958–present.) An increasing CO₂ net emissions rate produces an accelerating CO₂ cumulative concentration.
This trajectory leads to death, for our species and the biosphere, with 100 % certainty, according to the laws of physics.
Figures 1B-i (top), 2B-i (bottom). Our possible future trajectories. A decreasing but still Net Positive emissions rate will produce a decelerating but still increasing cumulative concentration. It is only once we pass Net Zero, and reach NET NEGATIVE EMISSIONS, that cumulative concentration will begin decreasing, back down toward the climatologist consensus safe range for earth habitability, of below 350 PPM (CO2.Earth, 2015–present). As of 2026 Jan 1, we were at cumulative concentration about 426.9 PPM, and rising by net emissions rate about 2.57 PPM/year. At or below 435 PPM, we have a decreased risk of a Caparas Event occurring, and a decreased likely magnitude of that event if it occurs; at or above 440 PPM, we have an increased risk, and increased likely magnitude (relative to the risk and likely magnitude found, by the authors of Caparas et al, 2021, for such an event occurring by 2030, on our current trajectory); and the higher we permit the cumulative concentration to get, the higher both the risk and likely magnitude of a Caparas Event will be.
Note critically— Our peak cumulative concentration depends linearly on our Net Zero date; every 2 year + 8 month + 25 day climate action delay in the final Net Zero date will increase our eventual peak cumulative concentration by 5 PPM.
Note furthermore— As you may see, from the four alternative peak 435 PPM trajectories in figure 1B-i above, and from the animated figure 1B-ii below, every 1 year delay in the start-date of major climate action actually moves the necessary Net Zero date backward, by at least 6 month + 3 day, to produce the same peak.
NECESSARY NET ZERO DATES
|
If departing from our historical trajectory at start-date 2026 Jan 1— to produce peak 430 PPM CO₂ cumulative concentration, approximately equivalent to 1.55 ° C global warming, the necessary Net Zero date would be 2027 Oct 22; 435 PPM, 1.60 ° C, 2030 Sept 4; 440 PPM, 1.65 ° C, 2033 July 3; 445 PPM, 1.70 ° C, 2036 Apr 17; 450 PPM, 1.75 ° C, 2039 Jan 16; 455 PPM, 1.80 ° C, 2041 Oct 3; 460 PPM, 1.85 ° C, 2044 June 7; 465 PPM, 1.90 ° C, 2047 Jan 29; 470 PPM, 1.95 ° C, 2049 Sept 9; I do not include here dates for 475 PPM, 2.00 ° C, or higher, because I do not regard such as survivable; and anything past 450 PPM, 1.75 ° C, in my informed opinion, is of questionable survivability. |
 Figure 1B-ii. CO₂ net emissions rate. A forward delaying start-date for major climate action results in a backward regressing necessary Net Zero date, to produce a given peak. Peaks successively become precluded. |
If departing from our historical trajectory at a later date than 2026 Jan 1, simply take the amount of time since 2026 Jan 1, divide by two, and then subtract the result from the dates listed above. (So, for example, if departing at 2026 Febr 2, that is 32 days later, each of the dates above would move backward in time by at least 16 days. In fact, -1/2 is optimistic; the dates actually regress at average ratios between -0.5006 (430 PPM) and -0.5270 (470 PPM).)
A given peak becomes precluded, when the forward delaying start-date intercepts the backward regressing Net Zero date, meaning we would have to instantly go straight to Net Zero to achieve that peak; after that point, it means we have overshot. (So, for example, 430 PPM will become precluded, when we overshoot it, which on our current trajectory will be 2027 Mar 16; next, 435 PPM will be precluded, when we overshoot it, on our current trajectory 2029 Febr 8.)
All above assumes purely parabolic net emissions trajectories, for mathematical simplicity; in reality, of course, the results will be different, depending on how much our true trajectory diverges from the parabolic; nevertheless, the trajectories and dates above may be taken as characteristic. The temperature calibration assumes preïndustrial baseline cumulative concentration 275 PPM; and that we crossed 1.5 ° C warming on 2025 Apr 6, when cumulative concentration overshot 425 PPM; the calibration is linear rather than logarithmic, to (very roughly) account for albedo reduction effects, from icecap retreat and recent ærosol pollution control. Figure 2B-i, to avoid visual cluttering, only depicts the peak 435 PPM start-date 2026 Jan 1 trajectory; the point of the figure is to show, not specifics, but simply the general behaviour of the cumulative concentration curve (Net Positive increasing, Net Zero maximum, Net Negative decreasing); to view multiple alternative peak cumulative concentration curves together for comparison, see figure 2B-ii below. In figures B, the particular post- Net Zero subtrajectories are purely hypothetical, and do not affect the calculation of the peaks; what matters is that we do in fact reach Net Negative, even if it is a shallower or deeper Net Negative than I have pictured here; but, deeper is better, because it means cumulative concentration will decrease faster.
I do not include CH₄ (methane) directly, in the graphs and table here, because it breaks down in the atmosphere into CO₂, with a chemical half-life on the order of about 10 years; and therefore (A) it is already accounted for, indirectly in the form of its secondary product, merely at a delay; and (B) the inflated greenhouse effect potency of CH₄, while still CH₄, though certainly cause for concern, is nevertheless transient. It is the lingering and thus accumulating nature of CO₂ – that causes it to scale according to the integral of emissions over time, and requires vast expansion of our planet’s carbon-sink capacity to even begin to reduce, slowly, on the timescale of literal centuries – that makes it so incredibly dangerous.
Finally and importantly, please note that I am using a strict definition of Net Zero and the net emissions rate generally here, equal to the actual final measured Keeling curve first time-derivative (3 year + 3 month rolling interval rate-of-change of the 12 month rolling average, see figure 2A-ii below). So, any indirect ecological feedbacks – such as the aforementioned Siberian permafrost melt gas release feedback, and the Amazon rainforest dieback effect – are prefactored in, and simply must be overcome, through our reforestation and other environmental restoration/augmentation-based carbon-capture efforts (# 5 left), in order to reach true Net Zero and true Net Negative under this definition.
How are we doing currently?
(Right-click (on desktop/laptop) / hold-click (on phone) an image below, and open in new tab, to enlarge.)
 Figure 2B-ii. CO₂ cumulative concentration, most recent published 12 month rolling averages (as of 2026 May 14), superimposed on start-date 2026 Jan 1 trajectories for comparison, with historical trajectory ±1 and ±2 standard deviation bounds in darker grey. |
 Figure 2B-iii. Same as adjacent, but with historical trajectory subtracted out, and then zoomed in on y-axis, to more clearly show divergences. (As before, lighter grey lines are 5 PPM increments; and orange is 435 PPM.)  Figure 2A-ii. For context, the historical variation of the cumulative concentration 12 month rolling averages, again with the mean trajectory subtracted out. (Green is 350 PPM.) Note— It is this quite significant oscillation that causes the first time-derivative to require such a long rolling interval, about 3 year + 3 month for optimal smoothness. |
