# That Scary <i>Washington</i><i> Post</i> Article

*Published:* 2008-03-12
*Author:* Sheryl Canter

![Sheryl Canter](https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files/2008/02/sheryl_canter.jpg)*This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at the Environmental Defense Fund.*

On Monday, the *[Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901867.html)* reported that new studies say carbon output must be near zero to avert danger. They referred to two recent studies, one published in *[Geophysical Research Letters](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032388.shtml)* and one in the journal *[Global Biogeochemical Cycles](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GB002953.shtml)*.

I asked the scientists here at EDF about this. It turns out what’s missing from the *Washington Post* article is the time frame. Yes, we have to bring emissions to near zero, but it doesn’t have to be tomorrow. And moreover, this isn’t news!

From climate scientist [James Wang](http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=985):

> These studies – particularly the first one – didn’t present any dramatically new findings. They mainly reinforce what we’ve known for quite some time: To avoid dangerous temperature thresholds and stabilize the climate, anthropogenic emissions must drop to near zero *after about a century or so*.

The key phrase here is "after about a century or so."

In case that still leaves you worried, take heart from something economist [Nat Keohane](http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=12740) wrote in his post "[Time to Act, Not Despair](https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/12/12/time_to_act/)":

> Again and again, American entrepreneurs and investors have shown the ability to solve problems – when there is a market incentive for them to act. If the government will lead by capping carbon pollution, the primary cause of climate change, the market will respond with investment and innovation on a scale to solve this problem. Already, venture capitalists are pouring more than $300 million a month into new energy technologies. But it will take the certainty of a cap, an overall limit on carbon pollution, to unleash a sustained wave of investment and innovation.  
> …  
> With sufficient motivation, we can rise to the challenge and do what’s necessary. A cap on greenhouse gas emissions is the incentive we need to drive innovation and efficiency. We know what we need to do, and we have the ability to do it.