Binary systems only produce zero carbon dioxide so long as the geothermal waters are returned to the subsurface. If hydrogen sulphide is released so will carbon dioxide. Most of the discussion concerns steam and superheated steam systems. I do not know of an economically successful hot-rock system that has any substantial capacity, and that's all the UK has.

From:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/geothermal-energy/

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

"There are many advantages of geothermal energy. It can be extracted without burning a fossil fuel such as coal, gas, or oil. Geothermal fields produce only about one-sixth of the carbon dioxide that a relatively clean natural-gas-fueled power plant produces. Binary plants release essentially no emissions. Unlike solar and wind energy, geothermal energy is always available, 365 days a year. It’s also relatively inexpensive; savings from direct use can be as much as 80 percent over fossil fuels.

But it has some environmental problems. The main concern is the release of hydrogen sulfide, a gas that smells like rotten egg at low concentrations. Another concern is the disposal of some geothermal fluids, which may contain low levels of toxic materials. Although geothermal sites are capable of providing heat for many decades, eventually specific locations may cool down."

There is no justification for accepting the '21st century temperature rise' as meaningful of anything other than the simple fact that if you start from a low point and end on the downside of a spike you get a positive difference. Big deal.

Radical rodent

Thank you for confirmation that you cannot read a graph. The land Africa change you describe is a lot closer to 1C than your 0.5C.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/20/sea-level/

Sea level rises and falls, depending on who measures it, how many years later, and why.