1. The "Low Energy Demand" scenario consistent with 1.5°C does not use CCS & is therefore favoured by many.
LED still uses significant land (afforestation & bioenergy), goes net-negative in 2060, & has deep mitigation in the global South.
nature.com/articles/s4156…
LED still uses significant land (afforestation & bioenergy), goes net-negative in 2060, & has deep mitigation in the global South.
nature.com/articles/s4156…
2. The scenario only splits into North & South, not regions (I am not sure why).
A scenario from the same model with the same socioeconomic gives a regional split, with all regions with similar mitigation & negative emissions (especially Latin America).
data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/iamc-1.5c-expl…
A scenario from the same model with the same socioeconomic gives a regional split, with all regions with similar mitigation & negative emissions (especially Latin America).
data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/iamc-1.5c-expl…
3. Here is a comparison of LED across different scenarios with the same model & socioeconomics, but different temperature targets (& LED without CCS).
(I just don't have access to the LED results by region, to do a figure as in the previous tweet)
nature.com/articles/s4156…
(I just don't have access to the LED results by region, to do a figure as in the previous tweet)
nature.com/articles/s4156…
4. Deep mitigation for 1.5°C requires deep mitigation & negative emissions, even for developing countries. Less negative emissions, more effort also in developing countries. More negative emissions, more negative emissions in developing countries.
cicero.oslo.no/no/posts/cicer…
cicero.oslo.no/no/posts/cicer…
5. (Today's wealthy, & their ancestors, caused the climate problem, but the unpopular reality, is that they can not solve it alone.)
6. Models generally mitigate where it is cheapest, which does not implicitly consider equity. There is an implicit assumption that equity issues can somehow be ironed out with financial transfers or similar.
7. Which comes to the good point by @kmac, what are the trade-offs?
Those trade-offs become much more evident when drilling into the country level. Bring it home to where the action has to happen, don't hide behind global numbers
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.102…
Those trade-offs become much more evident when drilling into the country level. Bring it home to where the action has to happen, don't hide behind global numbers
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.102…
7. Which is why, I think, people don't like discussing feasibility. Feasibility ultimately highlights trade-offs, & trade-offs, requires errr, trade-offs: short-/long-term, more/less impacts, more/less equity, global North/South, you/me, etc.
8. But, if we are unwilling to expose, make explicit, & discuss the trade-offs, then we will not understand the extend of the challenge we face.
/END
/END
