Need help on the proper term.

[wonderingmind42]

In order to get atm carbon concentration back down to 350 ppm, we need to do this sequence of things:
1-slow the growth of emissions
2-stop the growth of emissions
3-shrink emissions
4-eliminate emissions (zero emissions)
5-have net negative emissions (using carbon sequestration) for a while

What I need help on is what phrase to use for #3. I'm giving a primer for the reader, so that as the discussion advances in the future, the reader will be able to recognize where in the process people are talking about. So I'm producing a sort of "lookup" table (with illustration) so that when Joe Schmoe hears "stop emissions" he can go look up what that means visually. So I want to use the phrases that will likely be used. I'm confident the first two the typical way of saying it. What is (or will be) the typical way to refer to #3? I'm asking those who are in the climate community for what is the standard phrase that is (or will be) used with the public?

Thanks,

[Nick Palmer]

2) ceiling/cap on emissions
3) reduce emissions

[Tempest Stormwind]

Nick's got it.

Another common term used is "fossil fuel use / emissions needs to peak by 2020". I'd suggest a graph, such as those from the IPCC SPM, with the sections you were mentioning labeled.

[wonderingmind42]

Originally Posted by Tempest Stormwind

Nick's got it.

Another common term used is "fossil fuel use / emissions needs to peak by 2020". I'd suggest a graph, such as those from the IPCC SPM, with the sections you were mentioning labeled.

Thanks Nick and Tempest. A simple graph is planned, informed by 8 years of frustration with trying to come up with a way to convey to the lay student the relationships amongst position, velocity, and acceleration graphs.

Thanks!

[wonderingmind42]

Originally Posted by Tempest Stormwind

Nick's got it.

Another common term used is "fossil fuel use / emissions needs to peak by 2020". I'd suggest a graph, such as those from the IPCC SPM, with the sections you were mentioning labeled.

Oh, Tempest. Is the "need to peak by 2020" a standard goal (like McKibben and Hansen's 350)? Or did you just make that up? Background, please.

[Tempest Stormwind]

Originally Posted by wonderingmind42

Oh, Tempest. Is the "need to peak by 2020" a standard goal (like McKibben and Hansen's 350)? Or did you just make that up? Background, please.

I can't find my original source; I believe it was from Joe Romm, I'll try to look it up. The idea was that peaking by 2020 was critical for getting us 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 -- and that is a stated policy goal.

[wonderingmind42]

Cool. Thanks
Greg