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 far below, “re # 1,” bordered green); the creator and current owner-operator of this climate crisis public informational website, NetNeg2035.net; and an aspiring disciple of Love incarnate, Jesus of Nazareth.

PROTEST CANCELATIONS— (Old two days/week schedule) canceled Mar 19 Thur – July 28 Tues; (new five days/week schedule) resuming July 29 Wedn at earliest. 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, 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 numerous other problems in my life. But, I have made progress on the banner! I long to be getting honked and sworn at for two hours straight, again, this time five days/week, all for the sake of the Word and Gospel 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!!!

Please support the Gitx’⁠san Lax’⁠yip Firekeepers, defending their Native land against the prince Rupert pipeline. You may donate via etransfer to Firekeepers@laxyip.com; and may read more about them, and find other ways to support them, at their website here. (Note⁠— Some browsers may incorrectly flag the site as “⁠not secure”⁠; however, the site is secure.)

To enlarge any image on this website, right-click (on desktop/laptop) / hold-click (on phone) and open in new tab. No part of this website – nor anything else I ever have created or will create in my life – was made using environmentally damaging so-called “⁠AI”.

———

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 criminally underreported in the media. If carbon dioxide (CO₂) net emissions continue to increase (figure 1A right), and CO₂ cumulative concentration therefore continues to accelerate upward (figure 2A 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. The ONLY question is when, not whether.

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 IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING, IMMEDIATELY, RAPIDLY, AND AT MASSIVE SCALE, IF WE WISH TO SURVIVE⁠—

Net Negative 2035 Oct 9 – preferably sooner – would be sufficient to limit CO₂ cumulative concentration to peak 445 PPM, and thus global warming to peak 1.75 °⁠C – and therefore maximize the likelihood of human survival and preservation of the biosphere; see necessary Net Zero dates table, righthand column, below figures A and B-⁠i, bordered red.

Anyone opposing Net Zero and Net Negative is opposing continued human existence on the planet earth.

Re # 2 above— All fossil-fuel production and power generation, including CNG/LNG, must cease. Natural gas, compressed (CNG) or liquefied (LNG), is a fossil-fuel, and releases planetkilling greenhouse gas when burned; there is no such thing as “⁠clean burning natural gas”.

Re # 3— 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. And, they should be banned from doing so using the torture-factories we call factory-farms – FREERANGE ONLY, BY LAW.

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 already have done. (Lippke et al, 2021.) If another form of environmental restoration/augmentation – EG peatlands, kelp-forests, oceanic iron-fertilization / alkalinization, etc – is found to be comparably efficacious and scalable to trees or greater, then it of course may be coï⁠mplemented. 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.) Genetic engineering of plants/algæ should be researched, to see if CO₂ absorption and sequestration rates can be increased (especially in more rapid-growth and dense-growth species, or even our crops themselves); any regulatory roadblocks to such research should be immediately removed, and replaced with large grants. DEFORESTATION MUST BE BANNED AND ENDED.

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 necessarily and definitionally will 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 cataclysmic rapid rewarming to a higher equilibrium. Even without termination shock, potential damage includes precipitation disturbances leading to drought or worsening rainforest dieback, and ozone layer depletion. Entirely besides all these environmental issues, there are also numerous ethical issues, around things like governance and harm attribution – to say nothing of the basic issue of consent. (Burns, 2011; 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, (i) distributing wealth directly to the working-class, (ii) raising the market-value of labour and therefore increasing everyone’⁠s relative real wages to be able to afford rising cost-of-living, (iii) strengthening all workers’ bargaining-power by giving them the freedom to leave their jobs and have this as a safety-net, and (iv) just generally giving everyone the choice of rewarding work if they want it;

— 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 influence and 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 thus 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 weekday, 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 (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, below 350 PPM (CO2.Earth, 2015–⁠present).

As of 2026 Jan 1, we were at cumulative concentration about 426.9 PPM; rising by net emissions rate about 2.57 PPM/year; and accelerating by historical mean emissions change-rate about 0.027 PPM/year².

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 of such an event occurring by 2030 Jan 1 on our current trajectory (which Caparas et al, 2021, warns is possible); and the higher we permit the CO₂ cumulative concentration to get, the higher both the risk and likely magnitude of a Caparas Event will be – with the time-cumulative probability, in particular, scaling according to the time-INTEGRAL of the cumulative concentration excess, itself ALREADY the time-integral of net emissions. (So, for example, 465 PPM is not 6 times, but in fact 36 times higher excess risk than 440 PPM, relative to a 435 PPM risk-baseline – because it not only is 6 times higher above that baseline, but also remains above it for 6 times longer.) Thus – no matter how small either may start out at – the risk and magnitude both scale, extremely rapidly and without bound, until they reach 100 % CERTAIN DEATH.

Net Negative emissions is the precondition of human survival; and the sooner we reach Net Negative, the greater our chance of survival will be.

Note, critically, in figure 1B-⁠i⁠— Our peak cumulative concentration depends approximately linearly on our Net Zero date; every 2 year + 8 month + 29 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, to produce the same peak.

NECESSARY NET ZERO DATES

If departing from our historical trajectory at start-date 2027 Jan 1⁠— to produce peak 430 PPM CO₂ cumulative concentration, approximately equivalent to 1.57 °⁠C global warming, the necessary Net Zero date would be 2027 Apr 22; 435 PPM, 1.63 °⁠C, 2030 Mar 2; 440 PPM, 1.69 °⁠C, 2032 Dec 27; 445 PPM, 1.75 °⁠C, 2035 Oct 9; 450 PPM, 1.81 °⁠C, 2038 July 7; 455 PPM, 1.87 °⁠C, 2041 Mar 22; 460 PPM, 1.93 °⁠C, 2043 Nov 23; 465 PPM, 2.00 °⁠C, 2046 July 14.

Figure 1B-ii. CO₂ net emissions. 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.

I do not include here dates for 470 PPM, 2.07 °⁠C, or higher, because I do not regard such as survivable; and anything past 445 PPM, 1.75 °⁠C, in my educated and informed opinion, is of questionable survivability.

If departing from our historical trajectory at a later start-date than 2027 Jan 1, simply take the amount of time since that date, divide by two, and then subtract the result from the dates listed above. (So, for example, if departing at 2027 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 ratios between -⁠0.5004 (430 PPM) and -⁠0.5228 (465 PPM).)

A given peak becomes precluded absolutely, when the forward delaying start-date intercepts the backward regressing necessary Net Zero date, meaning we would have to go instantly 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 17; next, 435 PPM, on 2029 Febr 9.) If however a peak may be considered practically precluded, if the start-date and its necessary Net Zero date come within some interval of each other, then the preclusion dates all would move backward from the overshoot dates, by at most 2/3 that interval. (So, for example, if the Green Transition requires say 9 years, then the preclusion dates would move backward from the overshoot dates by at most 6 years: in this case, 440 PPM already would have been precluded, on 2024 Dec 22; 445 PPM would be next, on 2026 Oct 22; next, 450 PPM, on 2028 Aug 10.)

For reference⁠— In figure 1A above, you may see that the net emissions rate historically, frequently, temporarily, actually has decreased, against the overall increasing trend; you may note, for an especially striking example, the largest sustained decline, during and after the Soviet union collapse, 1987 Sept 13 – 1992 Apr 7 (4.57 year), from 1.98 PPM/year to 0.80 PPM/year, at average change-rate -⁠0.258 PPM/year² (even this just -⁠1.81 standard deviation from mean!). Starting from the 2026 Jan 1 net emissions rate, if we maintained average emissions change-rate -⁠1 standard deviation from mean (so, -⁠0.129 PPM/year²), the Green Transition would require 19.80 year; at -⁠2 standard deviation (-⁠0.286 PPM/year²), 8.97 year; and at -⁠3 standard deviation (-⁠0.443 PPM/year²), 5.80 year. For further reference⁠— The time between 1962 Sept 12 (“We choose to go to the moon”) and 1969 July 20 (“Houston, the Eagle has landed”) is 6.86 year.

NOTES—

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 already is accounted-for, indirectly in the form of its secondary product, merely at a time-delay; and (B) the inflated greenhouse effect potency of CH₄, while still in CH₄ form, though certainly cause for concern, is nevertheless transient. It is the lingering and thus accumulating nature of CO₂ (whether primary, or secondary from CH₄ breakdown) – causing it to scale according to the time-integral of net emissions, and requiring 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. For the purposes of this site, CH₄ matters insofar as its constituent carbon moles translate to future CO₂ moles. Large CH₄ emissions – such as from the Siberian permafrost melt gas release feedback, or from mass-scale animal-agriculture growth – quickly will translate to a merely time-smeared CO₂ signal, and appear herein, and so are not ignored.

The temperature calibration used herein is a second-order curve-fit between the Keeling curve and the UK Met office Hadley centre global warming data (Hadley, 1850–⁠present) – which actually reveals a second derivative slightly positive (upward curving), rather than the negative expected of the logarithm (direct greenhouse effect only); you may note, in the dates table above, that the temperature, until 460 PPM, rises at 0.06/5 °⁠C/PPM, then after that point rises at 0.07/5 °⁠C/PPM. This – representing warming acceleration, plus-quam-in-tandem with CO₂ acceleration – most likely is due to albedo reduction from icecap retreat.

Figure 3. CO₂ (x-axis, historical mean trajectory til 2023 Jan 1, 12 month rolling average after) to temperature (y-axis, 24 month rolling average) relation. Blue is second-order curve-fit and my calibration; green is solely logarithmic curve-fit (clearly over-optimistic extrapolating); if blue is correct, then orange (tangent with blue at origin) is true logarithmic component only from direct greenhouse effect; and then red (difference between orange and blue) is component from all indirect effects, such as icecap retreat.

All herein assumes at-most parabolic CO₂ net emissions and at-most cubic CO₂ cumulative concentration trajectories, for mathematical simplicity; in reality, of course, the results will be different, depending on how much our true trajectory diverges from the parabolic-cubic; nevertheless, the trajectories and dates herein may be taken as characteristic.

In all 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 shallower or deeper than I have pictured here; but, a deeper Net Negative is better, because it means cumulative concentration will decrease faster; and it should be at least deeper than -⁠0.26 PPM/year (-⁠10.0 % the 2026 Jan 1 net emissions rate, and -⁠1 standard deviation of the historical net emissions rate as defined below from the mean trajectory), to ensure that, even if it occasionally may fluctuate to Net Positive, it still securely remains Net Negative on average overall.

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 (30 month rolling interval rate-of-change of the 12 month rolling average). So, any indirect ecological feedbacks – such as the aforementioned Siberian permafrost melt gas release feedback, and the Amazon rainforest dieback effect – therefore 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?

Figure 2B-ii. CO₂ cumulative concentration, LIVEFEED as of 2026 July 1, most recent published 12 month rolling averages (solid blue), and single month values with average seasonal variation subtracted out (transparent blue), superimposed on start-date 2026 Jan 1 trajectories for comparison, with historical trajectory ±⁠1, ±⁠2, and ±⁠3 standard deviation bounds in dark grey.

Figure 1B-iii. CO₂ net emissions, LIVEFEED, strict definition (solid green), and preliminaries based on progressively shorter rolling intervals and rolling averages minus seasonal variation and then renormalized to the mean (transparent green), all superimposed on start-date 2026 Jan 1 trajectories.

——

——