From the UNITED IN SCIENCE Report -- "Despite the global upward trend, emissions from the USA and the European Union have declined over the past decade, and growth
in China’s emissions has slowed significantly compared to the 2000s" -- HUH!!
Three key reasons for such rejection: This criterion of success i) demands that no new "substantial" emissions take place in adaptation, ii) does not recognize any differentiation between developed and developing countries and iii) flies in the face of socio-economic realities.
Let us deconstruct this method of "gauging the success" of adaptation by examining this figure from the authors of this method.
Congratulations to @JimSkeaIPCC on his election as Chair of @IPCC_CH. At COP27, @mssrf and @NIAS_India were privileged to have him on our panel discussion at the India Pavilion on Climate Equity, Carbon Budgets and IPCC AR6 Scenarios. @moefcc @byadavbjp @JRBhatt60 @KanitkarT
My colleague @KanitkarT and I appreciated @JimSkeaIPCC willingness to listen and engage, though there was considerable distance between our views. We are encouraged by his post-election remarks, though the journey to achieving it will be a testing one in practice.
Congratulations too to the full Bureau elected to lead the IPCC through Seventh Assessment Cycle. . Includes good friend Prof. Raman Sukumar as Working Group II Vice-Chair and several others in the Bureau that we are privileged to know.ipcc.ch/2023/07/28/ipc…
Thank you @wang_seaver for a excellent analysis of current literature on 100%RE claims. Analysis of a kind that my colleague @KanitkarT, myself, and others including Sreeja Jaiswal, @Sreejaiswal, Aravindhan Nagarajan, @sciencebwoy, and Akhil Mythri) are partial to.
The paper titled "What the 100% Renewables Literature Gets Wrong" has this main conclusion - " Claims that Asia and Africa can easily achieve a clean energy transition at low cost using renewables and storage alone are bunk." India must take care!!
Thanks also for the callout to our work on scenarios, available here as policy briefs, and paper https://t.co/vKDjg29wZo. In this thread are some messages from @wang_seaver's work that stand out for me...twn.my/title2/climate… osf.io/p46ty/
Unhappily surprised by this contribution from a leading CGIAR scientist on climate and agriculture!! Not a word mentioned about the need for adaptation in agriculture. Focusing exclusively on mitigation.
Admits stringent 1.5 deg scenarios threaten food security in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South Asia (SA). Omits mention that this is a reversal of current trends that are increasing food security. Also totally neglects differentiation between & within countries in agriculture.
By a bizarre twist of logic the burden of mitigation is actually placed on small holders in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Let us follow this through. Step 1 - Accepts that stringent mitigation could compromise food security and increase hunger in SSA and SA.
MOONWALKING CLIMATE RESPONSIBILITY. This Nature article walks historical and current responsibility backward -- putting the onus on developing countries. Despite the pious initial remark of how responsibility for solutions shouldn't fall on those whose contribution is the least.
Nowhere does it step forward to say how and to what extent developed countries should take the lead in emissions reduction. Some ritual hand-wringing of course on the failure to provide the USD100 billion promise and the hope that they will now do better on finance.
What it is specific on is what developing countries should do. Low-income countries are to provide elaborate plans for climate action and development needs, "signalling their serious intent" to integrate the two. Signal to whom? The "rich" or their academic M&E specialists?
EU SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD ON CLIMATE CHANGE accepts that equity considerations should be based on national fair share of global carbon budgets. India's own fair-share-of-budget deniers should take note at least now!! climate-advisory-board.europa.eu/reports-and-pu…
Acknowledges the huge disparity in historical cumulative emissions. But of course will allocate emissions based mainly only on sharing the remaining carbon budgets (RCB) . Nodding ack of earlier allocation of fair share of RCB from 1990, but pursued.
All pre-2015 historical emissions are grandfathered and even the main background paper by Pelz, @JoeriRogelj and Keywan Riahi, does not consider historical responsibility before 1990. Pre-2015 responsibility is only used as a weighting mechanism for allocating the RCB.