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; newly a bachelor of social work, UBCV 2026, and proud social services direct-support professional (DSP) of four years, serving the unhoused; the cellist-vocalist of environmentalist music-video channel @ELIAHAVAH on Youtube; the GREEN JOBS GUARANTEE highway banner campaign climate protestor (see lefthand column section III, final subsection “re # 1,” bordered green); the owner-operator of this climate crisis public-informational website; and an aspiring disciple of Love incarnate, Jesus of Nazareth.

PROTEST CANCELATIONS— Canceled Mar 19 Thur – Sept 13 Sun; resuming Sept 14 Mon 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. Since then, I have been attempting labouriously to redesign a new banner, that can stand up on its own against the powerful highway winds; and also dealing with numerous major personal problems. But, I long and hope to be getting honked and sworn at for two hours straight, again, all for the sake of the 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!!!

I, and this website, firmly reject doomerism. “Today is the next best time to act, if the best time was yesterday.” — doctor Ella Gilbert, 2026, :08:51. We must fight for every -⁠0.01 °C we can. THE FUTURE IS NOT SET-IN-STONE; WE HAVE A CHOICE. Please see concluding remarks, page bottom, bordered Tyrian.

Please find and join your local climate protest group.

Please support COOL EARTH, saving the rainforests, at their website here. Climatologist doctor Simon Clark has made a video about their operational model and positive impact, which you may view here.

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

Further reading on the microplastics crisis⁠— Ogunola, Onada, Falaye, 2018; Prata et al, 2019; Roy, Mohanty, Misra, 2022.

Further reading on the insect and bird population-collapse monoägriculture/pesticides crisis⁠— Benton, Vickery, Wilson, 2003; Şekercioğlu, Daily, Ehrlich, 2004; Wagner et al, 2021.

To enlarge any image, right-click (desktop/laptop) / hold-click (phone) and open in new tab. All graphs rendered using Mathematica (Wolfram, 1988–present). No part of this website – nor anything else I ever will create in my life – was made using environmentally damaging so-called “AI”. Citation⁠—

Scott, EJ (2026-02-02–present). NetNeg2035.net. Creative Commons. (Last manual update 2026-09-10.)

+

(I) Climate breakdown.

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 termed 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 continues 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 occurs, also will scale according to at least t² (and likely higher), until it becomes an extinction scale event. The journalist AH Lewis said, There are nine missed meals between humankind and anarchy. If we continue on our current trajectory, total societal collapse and world human population implosion on the gigadeath scale WILL RESULT – inevitably, with absolutely 100 % certainty, according to the tyrannical, unbendable, 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 eventual annihilation. Anyone telling you otherwise is spreading an ECOCIDAL, OMNICIDAL LIE in the service of big oil; and if knowingly, should be jailed, at least.

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; and wildfire proliferation (Hudiberg et al, 2023), another reënforcing feedback, also is rising. Meanwhile, deforestation and other ecocide (Houghton, Castanho, 2023; Higgins, Short, South, 2013) slowly kills the lungs of the earth – our beautiful eukaryote sisters, our only saviours, the photosynthetes of Diaforetikes – heaping another carbon-positive growing cost, by their sheer loss alone, on top of everything. Together, these and other climate tipping-points (Lenton et al, 2025) mean that climate breakdown will accelerate EVEN FASTER.

We therefore no longer have ANY TIME to spare – if we ever did.

—

(II) Net Neg 2035 short-form plan.

WE MUST IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING, IMMEDIATELY, RAPIDLY, AND MASSIVELY AT-SCALE⁠—

—

(III) Net Neg 2035 long-form plan.

Net Negative 2035 Oct 9 – preferably sooner – would be sufficient to limit CO₂ cumulative concentration below peak 445 PPM, and thus global warming below peak 1.75 °C – and therefore maximize the likelihood of human survival and preservation of the biosphere⁠— see righthand column section VI, necessary Net Zero dates table, bordered red; same section, subsequent subsection on later start-dates, for PDF with full graphs and tables; and same section, final subsection on required intervals, for feasibility analysis. Overshooting 1.75 °C does not necessarily, by itself, mean death; but it does mean a higher chance of death.

The climate crisis will continue to get worse, and will not stop getting worse, until we reach Net Zero; it will not start getting better, until we reach Net Negative; and the longer it takes us to reach Net Zero and Net Negative, the worse it will get. Anyone opposing Net Zero and Net Negative is opposing continued human existence on the planet earth.

To anyone who may say, “But how will we afford all these things?” I say⁠— What price do you put on human survival? If we wish to live, we will finance it – and move Heaven and earth if we must. But, there are numerous potential funding sources that could be tapped to help – “AI” data-centre tax, more steeply progressive income tax, wealth appreciation tax, stock-market transaction tax, tax-haven tariffs, big polluter fines and penalties, ending fossil-fuel subsidies, slashing bloated military / militarized police budgets, etc, etc, etc. And, it also always should be borne in mind that every dollar spent on mitigation now reduces dollars spent on adaptation / disaster recovery later⁠— the sooner we act, the higher the savings rate.

Re # 2 above⁠— ALL fossil-fuel extraction/production and power generation MUST CEASE. (United Nations, 2023.) This includes CNG/LNG: natural gas, either compressed (CNG) or liquefied (LNG), is a fossil-fuel, and releases planet-killing greenhouse gas – both indirectly in production and transport, and directly when burned, and from raw leaks (counting all of which makes it dirtier than coal); there is no such thing as “clean burning natural gas”, and to say that there is is a LIE. (Speirs et al, 2020; Inman et al, 2020.) Biofuels, also, are not a long-term viable fossil-fuel substitute: they are enormously inefficient in power generated per area land-use, and therefore contribute to deforestation; and when this indirect land-use change is factored in, they are not even carbon-neutral. (Sandford, Malins, Phillips, 2024.)

Re # 3⁠— There are valid environmental and ethical concerns surrounding current EV production. However, (A) they are indisputably a harm-reduction measure, as compared against ecocidal-omnicidal GAS AUTOS, WHICH MUST END NOW; and (B) both lithium and cobalt mining requirements will decrease dramaticly, allowing for more selective sourcing, as more past-warranty batteries begin entering the recycling pool (Watson, 2026, :54:11), and as sodium electrolyte (Levy, 2026), iron phosphate cathode (Borlace, 2020), and other alternative battery types become more available. All aviation must be green-H₂ (hydrogen); if we wish for it still to be consumer-end cheap, then it simply must be heavily subsidized, til intrinsic costs come down; all non-H₂ excessive frequent-flying, especially low-occupancy (private jets), immediately must begin being steeply penalized, over some reasonable threshold (generous at first, say 2 earth semicircumference kerosene high-occupancy emissions-equivalent shares/person/year, to be lowered later after green-H₂ options become more available); and high-speed train must be expanded, rapidly and sufficiently massively, to replace ciscontinental non-H₂ flight demand. Shipping, along with steel, concrete, and fertilizer manufacturing, all also immediately must begin being transitioned to green-H₂ or other zero-emissions options; again, subsidize if necessary.

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 – along with the land-area currently being wasted on biofuels – 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, plus accommodate future population growth. 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 subsidized 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) natural 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-prisons 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. All surviving old forest and new reforestation must be MONITORED, MAINTAINED, PROTECTED, in perpetuïty, by international law. And, this all must be done ALONGSIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION, to begin to reverse the damage we already have done. (Lippke et al, 2021.) DEFORESTATION AND ALL OTHER ECOCIDE MUST BE BANNED AND ENDED. 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. Finally, we can use terrestrial restored/augmented ecosystems as refugia for insects and birds, and oceanic ones for marine life, to rebuild their numbers; and thus begin to solve two earth-threatening crises with one stone – the climate crisis, and the Anthropocene mass-extinction⁠— though, of course, the latter also will require an end to monoägriculture and pesticide overuse; see preface, page top-left, subsection on further reading.

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, most especially Indigenous 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 –

• raising the market-value of labour and therefore increasing everyone’s real wages to be able to afford rising cost-of-living,

• strengthening all workers’ bargaining-power by giving them the freedom to leave their jobs and have this as a safety-net,

• directly distributing wealth to the working-class,

• and just generally giving everyone the choice of 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 influence and/or 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.

(IV) Historical and future trajectories.

Figures 1A (top), 2A (bottom). Our historical and current trajectory. (Keeling, Keeling, 1958–present.) An increasing CO₂ net emissions 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 (top), 2B (bottom). Our possible future trajectories. A decreasing but still Net Positive emissions 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, 2025).

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

—

(V) Snapshot and livefeeds.

How are we doing currently?

As of 2026 Sept 1, we were at mean CO₂ cumulative concentration about 428.7 PPM, rising by mean Net Positive emissions about 2.588 PPM/year, and accelerating by historical mean emissions change-rate about 0.02702 PPM/year². Resultant mean global warming was about 1.554 °C, and rising by about 0.032 °C/year.

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

Figure 1C. CO₂ net emissions, LIVEFEED, strict definition (solid green, see righthand column section VII, final subsection on net emissions definition), and preliminaries based on progressively shorter rolling intervals and rolling averages minus seasonal variation and then renormalized to the mean (transparent green), all again superimposed on historical mean and start-date 2026 Jan 1 trajectories. Note⁠— The strict definition must cross the -⁠3 standard deviation line, before we may say for sure that it is non-transiently decreasing.

—

(VI) Trajectory behaviour and dates tables.

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.

Note, critically, in figure 1B above⁠— 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, and from the animated figure 1D 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 1D. 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.) See PDF of figures A and B, for start-dates 2026–2030, with tables of cumulative concentration peaks, necessary Net Zero dates (with intervals), and necessary average emissions change-rates (with standard deviation feasibilities); and see this section, final subsection on required intervals, for feasibility analysis snapshot text summary.

Regarding the aforesaid required interval⁠— In figure 1A above, you may see that the net emissions historically, frequently, temporarily, but significantly, actually has decreased, against the overall increasing trend. Based on this quite pronounced historical fluctuation, of the Keeling curve second time-derivative (60 month rolling double-interval curvature of the 12 month rolling average), for start-date 2027 Jan 1 (projected mean net emissions 2.60 PPM/year), the Green Transition would require – at average emissions change-rate -⁠1 standard deviation (SD) from historical mean (so, -⁠0.129 PPM/year²), 20.01 year (Net Zero 2047 Jan 2); at -⁠2 SD (-⁠0.286 PPM/year²), 9.06 year (2036 Jan 23); and at -⁠3 SD (-⁠0.443 PPM/year²), 5.86 year (2032 Nov 9). Therefore, peaks 430 PPM and 435 PPM both almost certainly already are practically precluded, as both require average emissions change-rates steeper than -⁠3 SD – either under my parabolic-cubic trajectory form, or even under a more forgiving linear-parabolic⁠— see righthand column section VII, subsection on alternative form trajectories. Under parabolic-cubic, even peaks 440 PPM and 445 PPM also potentially may be practically precluded, despite requiring average emissions change-rates respectively only -⁠0.434 PPM/year² (-⁠2.94 SD) and -⁠0.297 PPM/year² (-⁠2.06 SD) – because, although these averages are above -⁠3 SD, the parabolic-cubic has steepest point twice its average slope deviation, placing both, at steepest, below -⁠4 SD; though, at least under linear-parabolic, both do become in-principle possible, at -⁠0.321 PPM/year² (-⁠2.22 SD) and -⁠0.218 PPM/year² (-⁠1.56 SD), uniformly. HOWEVER, even under the more unforgiving parabolic-cubic, peak 450 PPM, 1.81 °C, Net Zero 2038 July 7 (interval 11.51 year), still is IN-PRINCIPLE POSSIBLE, at average -⁠0.226 PPM/year² (-⁠1.62 SD), and thus steepest point above -⁠4 SD; and also accordingly under linear-parabolic, at just -0.165 PPM/year² (-1.22 SD) uniformly. And, therefore, all peaks past 450 PPM, likewise, ALSO still are IN-PRINCIPLE POSSIBLE.

The ONLY constraint is not our ability, but our will.

—

(VII) Notes.

I do not include CH₄ (methane) directly, in the graphs and tables 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. For the purposes of this site, CH₄ matters insofar as its constituent moles translate to future CO₂ moles; and as it affects the temperature calibration (next subsection). Further reading on CH₄-specific mitigation⁠— Nisbet et al, 2020; Saunois et al, 2025.

N₂O (nitrous oxide), the greenhouse gas of third largest effect, is not counted either directly or indirectly – except, again, in its effect on the temperature calibration (below). It nevertheless, of course, also can and must be combatted. Further reading on N₂O-specific mitigation⁠— Thomson et al, 2012; Cui et al, 2024.

The temperature calibration used herein is a straightforward second-order curve-fit between the Keeling curve and the UK Met office Hadley centre global warming data (Hadley, 1850–present) – which reveals a second partial-derivative slightly positive (upward curving), rather than the negative naïvely expected of the logarithm (direct CO₂ greenhouse effect and proportionate indirect effects only). This, representing warming acceleration, plus-quam-in-tandem with CO₂ acceleration, is due primarily to a combination of (A) icecap retreat albedo loss – which is disproportionate, both because polar warming is disproportionate already due to oceanic-atmospheric circulations, and also because the effect is a self-amplifying feedback (Gilbert, Kittel, 2021; Gilbert, 2023; Gilbert, Labe, 2026) – plus (B) CH₄ and (C) N₂O greenhouse effect contributions (at different relative time-accelerations than CO₂).

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); if blue is correct, then gold (tangent with blue at origin) is true logarithmic component only from direct CO₂ greenhouse effect and proportionate indirect effects; and then red (difference between gold and blue) is component from all disproportionate effects, such as icecap retreat, CH₄, and N₂O.

All herein assumes at-most parabolic CO₂ net emissions and at-most cubic CO₂ cumulative concentration trajectories (piecewise, second time-derivative (d²/dt²) continuous), for mathematical simplicity. In reality, of course, the results will be more or less different, depending on how much our true trajectory diverges from the parabolic-cubic. Nevertheless, the trajectories and dates herein may be taken as characteristic: any alternative form trajectories still will follow all the same behaviours described above – Net Zero date delay causing peak increase, start-date delay causing necessary Net Zero date regress, peaks becoming precluded, etc. That said, my parabolic-cubic form likely is the most realistic, globally – because it reflects the geopolitical reality that different countries will join the Green Transition earlier or later, resulting in a steadily steepening curve⁠— see figure 1E adjacent. However, individual countries should follow linear-parabolic (d²/dt² discontinuous), not parabolic-cubic, because it is steadiest, and thus easiest to maintain; the overall parabolic-cubic merely is the resulting global sum, from the early and late joiners added together, all individually following linear-parabolic, but simply growing in number. …

Figure 1E. CO₂ net emissions, a parabolic-cubic (d²/dt² continuous, green), and a linear-parabolic (d²/dt² discontinuous, gold), both sharing start-date 2026 Jan 1 and both producing peak 445 PPM – plus, a series of 5 alternative form components (transparent red), representing 5 equal individual countries, scaled up by factor 5, each joining the Green Transition at different times, each individually near linear-parabolic before Net Zero, yet which, when divided back down by factor 5 and then all added together, equal the green parabolic-cubic. Early joiners require sooner Net Zero dates, to counterweigh the late joiners; yet, late joiners require steeper declines, to catch up. If however the international community all or mostly join the Green Transition closer together in time, then they instead can follow trajectories closer to the gentler gold linear-parabolic, with less time-pressure.

… But, importantly, early joining countries should target Net Zero dates BEFORE those listed in the parabolic-cubic necessary Net Zero dates table (so, in figure 1E, closer to leftmost red), rather than at or after, to try to counterweigh the late joiners still following our current death trajectory; the late joiners, in turn, must play catch-up afterward (closer to rightmost red). By contrast, if more countries join the Green Transition early on, the gentler everyone can go (closer to gold). Regardless, in either case, the finishing slowdown, from hard-to-decarbonize economic sectors, ideally, should occur AFTER passing Net Zero, provided earth’s natural carbon-sink capacity expanded sufficiently before then (# 5 left).

In all figures, the particular post⁠- Net Zero subtrajectories are purely hypothetical, and do not affect the calculation of the peaks or dates. 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 % of the 2026 Jan 1 mean net emissions, and -⁠1 standard deviation of the historical true net emissions as defined below from 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 CO₂ net emissions 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). This is different from (A) gross emissions, which is only the directly anthropogenic component. So, (B) carbon-positive ecological factors, such as deforestation and other ecocide, the Siberian permafrost melt gas release feedback, the Amazon rainforest dieback effect, wildfire proliferation, etc; and (C) carbon-negative ecological factors, such as increased terrestrial and oceanic CO₂ absorption via the CO₂-fertilization effect, reforestation and other natural carbon-sink restoration/augmentation, etc – all are prefactored in, as components, of the true total net emissions. We require the positive components A and B to be outweighed by the negative component C, through both gross emissions reduction (decreasing A), and our environmental restoration/augmentation-based carbon-capture efforts (decreasing B, increasing C), in order to reach true Net Zero and true Net Negative under this definition.