This. And the worst part about it is that the Paris agreement's 1.5°C target was based on the use of yet-to-be-developed CO2 capture and didn't account for already-happening-feedback-loops (like methane from Siberia, reduced reflection from melting poles and the shutdown of the Gulfstream, which is beginning to look inevitable)
From the IPCC:
> All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent to neutralize emissions from sources for which no mitigation measures have been identified
(Note: CDR Carbon Dioxide Removal)
On the CO2 budget calculated for 1.5°C:
> budgets applicable to 2100 would be approximately 100 GtCO2 lower than <calculated> to account for permafrost thawing and potential methane release from wetlands in the future, and more thereafter.
A number of years ago, when the controversy was brewing, I sat down and read the Paris agreement. The thing is a joke. It will do nothing for anyone other than shift billions of dollars into a number of nations for doing nothing. We already know some nations used the money to buy fleets of cars and airplanes, which is the very definition of irony.
The problem with a lot of these things is that everyone forms an opinion without investing any time reading the material (like the agreement) and doing even the most basic math to verify claims. And yet everyone knows we can "save the planet", it would be funny if it weren't so serious.
From the IPCC:
> All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent to neutralize emissions from sources for which no mitigation measures have been identified
(Note: CDR Carbon Dioxide Removal)
On the CO2 budget calculated for 1.5°C:
> budgets applicable to 2100 would be approximately 100 GtCO2 lower than <calculated> to account for permafrost thawing and potential methane release from wetlands in the future, and more thereafter.