Thread by @MLiebreich

Happy holidays everyone! I wish you much joy over the holidays, and some wonderful time with your families. The news can be pretty bleak, but there is much to be (guardedly) optimistic about as we enter the new decade. If you have a moment, read on...
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

Peak emissions are closer than you think. The new decade will be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, a decade of consequences. Play it right, and we have a chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. Waste it, and we are in uncharted territory. about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

Just to be clear, we will not see the sort of emissions decline by 2030 demanded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a 20% cut by 2030 to keep temperature rises to 2C, 45% cut to remain under 1.5C – but I would guess at a drop of around 5%.
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

Even a 5% drop by 2030 will be a game-changer: it will demonstrate that we can bend the arc; it will end the currently pervasive feeling of helplessness and impending doom; and it will set us up for much more decisive reductions in the subsequent decades.
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

Optimism, but within limits. Over the past decade, global emissions have risen by 15%. Between 2013 and 2016, emissions were flat, but in 2017 they took off again at 1.2% per year. This year they are up ~0.6%. It’s hard to be an unbridled optimist.
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

But while emissions grew 15% over the past decade, the global economy grew 45%. Even if growth remains at 3.8% per year - by no means given - we only need to increase decarbonization by 1.4% to see peak emissions. More than that, and they start to fall.
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

In 2017, the World Resources Institute reported that 49 countries, representing 36% of global emissions, have already passed peak emissions, and a further eight countries, representing another 23% of emissions, will peak in the next decade.
wri.org/publication/tu…

In fact, the OECD as a whole passed peak emissions a decade ago, even adjusted for emissions imported from non-OECD countries, air and shipping. Economic growth does not result in ever-growing emissions - something degrowth doomers don't want you to know.
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

But global peak emissions by 2030 won't just happen. We must be *actively* optimistic, i.e. create the future we want to see. First up energy efficiency. Can we please now get serious? The @iea Commission on Energy Efficiency is calling for 3% per year.
iea.org/programmes/glo…

Three takeaways from 1st meeting: 1) energy efficiency is finally becoming a national priority in many countries; 2) there is as much ‘low-hanging fruit’ today as there ever was; 3) there is now a far better understanding of how to deliver improvements. about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

If the world’s ministries of finance had a bit more understanding of the economic drag caused by resource waste, and were less convinced that energy demand growth inevitably correlates with healthy economic growth, we might see peak emissions tomorrow.
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

Next up, obscenely cheap renewable power. Record low costs for wind and solar are ~$17/MWh. As we close out the decade, BNEF has concluded that around two-thirds of the world’s population now live in countries in which wind or solar are the lowest-cost ways of generating power.

By 2030, the world record for onshore wind and solar will be below $10/MWh. It will probably be set in China, Morocco, Mexico or the Gulf states, but there is a chance it could be in India, Brazil, the U.S. - or even Australia, if it could sort itself out.
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

By 2030, distributed renewables will cost less retail costs of electricity in most parts of the world. Putting up a building without proper insulation, solar power, a battery, heat pump and rain water capture will be a act of deliberate economic self-harm.
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

As we approach the final days of 2019, wind and solar are already generating around 8.5% of global electricity, from around 2% a decade ago. BNEF estimates that figure will be nearer 25% by 2030, 39% by 2040 and 48% by 2050. Hold on to your hats!
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

The biggest unanswered question is whether the cost of managing intermittency will drop – with cheaper storage, more demand-response capacity, business model innovation and smart policy design – or soar as claimed by opponents of RE. You know what I think.
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

All the main energy models - even @BloombergNEF's - build in the idea of renewable energy saturation: growth rates decelerating over time. But what would it take to see a #RenewableSingularity - maintaining historic growth rates for the coming decades?
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

What would a #RenewableSingularity look like? Since 2000, wind output has doubled 5 times, solar has doubled 9 times. If wind doubles 5 more times it meets 100% of current power demand. Or if solar doubles another 7 times, it meets 100% of current demand. Now there's a thought!

To believe in a renewable energy singularity, first we must extract all of the latent flexibility in our current power systems, and then build more, (power storage, demand response, long-distance interconnections and linkages with transport and heat). 
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

Second: learn to love overcapacity: in a high-renewables system, it is not a bug, it’s a feature. If your $20/MWh LCOE wind/solar suffers 33% curtailment, you know what? It turns into $30/MWh wind or solar – still half the price of any other power source!
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

Third: electrification of transport, (which I don’t think anyone doubts is on the cards – Daimler Benz clearly thinks so) and heating (which, with global heat pump sales growing at 12% per year for the last decade, might finally be kicking off).

And fourth: the electrification of industry and the generation of green fuels, be they hydrogen, ammonia or liquid fuels like methanol. Amazing that it was just 18 months ago that I wrote this - optimistic, but posing lots and lots of questions: about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich…

Now we know that green hydrogen (based on renewable power) will start to be competitive with brown hydrogen (from steam methane reforming of natural gas with no carbon capture) by 2030, and that by 2050 it will have a clear advantage. This is yuge!
vimeo.com/368148666

By 2050, green hydrogen eats emissions from fertilisers and refining. Add a $20 carbon price, it takes out emissions from shipping; at $50, steel and concrete go green; $100, and H2 gets into space heating, glass, etc. That's over 30% of emissions. Cool! about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

Imagine a location with fabulous wind and solar resources, some pumped hydro, a few batteries, and a decent grid. By 2030, it will have power 80-90% of the time for ~$20/MWh; by 2050, $10/MWh. These will be the green industrial superpowers of the future!
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

The fifth driver of a potential #RenewableSingularity? Batteries. By 2030, EV batteries will cost around $65/kWh at pack level. That’s $6,500 for 300 miles range, or $13,000 for 600-miles – that is certainly more range than your bladder can handle!
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

All the pinch-points in the battery supply chain will have been long ironed out, and by 2030, all end-of-life batteries will be recycled – *if there are any*.We are on track for the “million-mile EV battery”. Think about the implications - mindblowing!
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

By 2030, you will not even remember about EV range anxiety – the same way you don’t remember that there were once insufficient modems to connect to the internet, or insufficient bandwidth for online video. Need more chargers? Go build them, stop whining!
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

The point is that clean energy and transport are penetrating into incumbent solutions according to technology penetration curves. These have very well-known S-curve dynamics. Professor and guru @MichaelGrubb9 has written brilliantly about them here:
ineteconomics.org/perspectives/b…

I paraphrase: in a logistic curve penetration, the first 1% takes forever; 1% to 5% is like waiting for a sneeze - gonna be explosive, but when?; 5% to 50% happens much faster than you think – that's when restructurings and bankruptcies happen. Bless you!
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

Business and finance are leading as never before. In board room after board room, over the past 24 months I have witnessed executives grappling with the issue of climate change. And it's not greenwashing: discussions are being led by the CEO and the CFO.
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

Same with finance. Most investors are trying to figure out how to bring their portfolios in line with the Paris Agreement. This will lead to asset disposals and new investments: no question, the cost of capital for high-carbon businesses is on the way up!
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

What does this mean for coal? Who cares how many new plants are being built if capacity factors are falling and existing plants are losing money?! The fact is, coal use in the global power system has been flat since 2012. Preliminary figures say it dropped 3% in 2019. Hurrah!

In the U.S., more coal capacity has been shuttered under President Trump than during any three year period under Presidrnt Obama. (Remember him? He was the one who didn't try to bribe foreign powers to dig up dirt on his political rivals.)

As for the UK, here's a beautiful visualisation of the elimination of coal power from our grid. HT #Gridwatch, @gnievchenko and @Conservatives. (BTW, congrats on the election win, now let's make sure we are on track for net zero carbon by 2050. The world is watching)

Oil? When I first suggested, at the @BloombergNEF Shanghai Summit in 2015, that we would see peak oil demand in 2030 +/- 5 years, it felt like a transgressive act. In 2019, even the Saudi Aramco IPO prospectus talked about peak demand "around 2035". Oil solstice is coming!

So far, I have barely mentioned policy. It's my version of the IEA’s Stated Policies Scenario: we'll see FF emissions peak by 2030 even in the absence of significant further climate policy. But, of course, there will be further policy, and lots of it!
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

Of 195 signatories to the #ParisAgreement, the majority are legislating to deliver their promises. Even though the U.S. is pulling out, State Administrations, Mayors, business leaders and individuals are declaring "We're Still In". They too will deliver.
wearestillin.com

So there you have it – the reasons why I believe we will see peak fossil fuel emissions during the coming decade. Will I be right? That’s the wrong question. The right question is whether you, dear reader, can make it so!
about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emis…

Next up, why I am optimistic that by 2030, our understanding of climate change will have vastly improved. Sadly, we will have to accept that 1.5C is out of reach, but the good news is we will have ruled out the worst apocalyptic scenarios too. But first, a spot of skiing. Selah!

There you go, nothing like a spot of skiing on Christmas Day. Thank you @LesDiablerets, what a magnificent place to spend some family time!

Now, let's talk about climate change, climate negotiations, the @IPCC_CH, and why we should be in a better place by 2030. First off, it's worth remembering what a hole we were in ten years ago. COP15 Copenhagen had just collapsed. My eldest daughter was the youngest attendee!

Copenhagen was framed around a fallacy: climate negotiations as a one-off prisoner's dilemma, so any solution means ceding power to transnational government to share out and enforce emission budgets. As I wrote in 2007, it's a repeated prisoner's dilemma:
liebreich.com/how-to-save-th…

At the time, I had not heard of Elinor Ostrom's work. She too had no time for the Copenhagen approach, proposing instead a "polycentric" approach, based on action at every level: local, regional, states, nations, businesses, individuals. Sounds like Paris!
documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/480…

COP25 Madrid flopped, but the past decade delivered Paris: “Paris is not posturing. Paris is not the world saying it wishes it weren’t trapped in an abusive relationship with the fossil fuel industry; Paris is the world’s economy serving divorce papers.”
about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich…

Over the past 3 years, the Paris framework has been progressively embedded into the political, social and business landscape around the world. Boris Johnson’s 2050 net-zero commitment? Paris. 77 countries committing to net zero? More Paris. sdg.iisd.org/news/77-countr…

President Trump has, of course, capriciously initiated the process of withdrawing. However, its citizens, states, cities and businesses are doing an end-run around him, effectively honoring the deal without the support of the Federal government. Classy!
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

In Madrid the U.S. argued that it must be forever allowed to continue policing the ‘loss and damage’ provisions, so that they can never be used to seek compensation from fossil fuel producers. No sir! Once out, the U.S. loses its seat at the table.
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

One of the big mistakes of climate diplomacy of the past 40 years has been to treat it as an environmental issue, instead of what it is: industrial and trade policy. The U.S. is about to voluntarily abandon a vital diplomatic battlefield. Silly Donald.
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

Stakes are high for #COP26 in Glasgow next year. It will need to restore trust lost in Madrid, pass rules on international carbon credits and usher through the next set of Nationally Determined Commitments. No one better to trust than @Cop26President!
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

In many ways climate diplomacy will look very similar in 2030 to today: consensus around the need for action, a growing body of rules, an increasing level of ambition and commitment, but a high level of frustration at the inadequate rate of progress.
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

While climate diplomacy may still look similar in 2030, climate science will not. Sadly, we will have had to give up hope of keeping to 1.5C of temperature increase. But the catastrophism of the last few years will have passed too. Let me explain...
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

It turns out that the most catastrophic climate outcomes, ubiquitously described as baseline or business-as-usual by climate scientists, journalists and activists, are not where we are headed, but represent an extreme and highly implausible scenario.
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

To ensure different teams of scientists around the world produce comparable outputs, @IPCC_CH uses a standard set of scenarios or RCPs, with different levels of radiative forcing in W/m2 by 2100. Historically, the IPCC gave them all equal probability.
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

@IPCC_CH For its 5th major Assessment Report in 2014, this changed. The most extreme scenario, RCP8.5, is the only no-mitigation scenario in the ensemble - the others all assume some level of mitigation. So it's hardly surprising people started using RCP8.5 as BAU.
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

@IPCC_CH But it goes far beyond this. Although the glossary states that "the term 'BAU' has fallen out of favour because the idea of 'business-as-usual' in century-long socioeconomic projections is hard to fathom", it was used in the foreword to Working Group III.
ipcc.ch/site/assets/up…

@IPCC_CH If you want to know what BAU refers to, it's not easy to figure out, because it is only defined as "baseline". Nowhere will you find it formally defined as RCP8.5.

@IPCC_CH But what you will find - repeated throughout the report of Working Group III of the 5th Assessment Report - is a chart that shows 'baseline' (the term for the set of no-mitigation runs) is largely congruent with RCP8.5, and baseline's median can only be achieved using RCP8.5.

@IPCC_CH So 'baseline' is - to all intents and purposes - inseparable from RCP8.5, and BAU is quite explicitly described as being identical to 'baseline'.

@IPCC_CH So although the @IPCC_CH never *explicitly* says anyone should use RCP8.5 as business-as-usual, it certainly frames RCP8.5 as business-as-usual, and provides no other no-mitigation scenario that can be used instead.

@IPCC_CH In fact, I tell a lie: the @IPCC_CH 5th Assessment Report Working Group II, in a couple of places, does explicitly refer to RCP8.5 as BAU:

@IPCC_CH Anyone who wants to argue that @IPCC_CH's Fifth Assessment Report in 2014 did not frame the most extreme scenario, RCP8.5 as BAU (and I know plenty do) then they need to explain how come thousands of papers now describe it as such:
scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&…

I'm sorry to rehearse this in such detail, but it's important. Because just as RCP8.5-as-BAU was becoming a canonical belief of climate activists including @GretaThunberg, @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future and @ExtinctionR. we have been figuring out that it is entirely implausible.

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR When RCP 8.5 was originally developed, it was described as "a relatively conservative business as usual case with low income, high population, and high energy demand." And that energy demand is met in RCP 8.5 by coal. Lots of coal. Lots and lots of coal.

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR At the time it was developed, in 2011, maybe RCP8.5 looked justified, because of recent surging emissions, driven by the industrialisation of China. But now the 7x increase in coal use per capita by 2100 in RCCP8.5 looks ludicrous. (HT @Peters_Glen)

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen In 2017 @jritch and Dowlatabadi showed why "vast expansion in 21st-century coal consumption should not be used to describe any plausible reference case of the global energy future." Basically there's not enough economically recoverable coal in the ground!
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch We all know @IEA scenarios have been too pessimistic about clean energy, ever since I founded NEF. Yet even @iea's Current Policy Scenario tracks way below RCP 8.5 through to 2040. Famously pessimistic energy experts are more optimistic than 99% of @IPCC_CH scenarios! HT @jritch

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH To reach RCP8.5 levels of radiative forcing by 2100, atmospheric CO2 would need to reach 1,100 ppm (315ppm in 1959, it's 411 ppm today). Extrapolating linearly gets to 540ppm. Adjust for recent acceleration in rate of increase, and you get about 650ppm.
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH What about feedbacks? The difference between 650ppm and 1,100ppm by 2100 would require the release of many hundreds of gigatons more CO2. There are no feedbacks I have found in the literature that can deliver this amount in the 80 years between now & 2100.
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH We need to get MUCH cleverer in thinking about feedback. As @jrockstrom says: "there are two time-scales that matter when it comes to climate change. One is the deployment time-scale, the other is the full impacts time frame, which unfolds over centuries."
today.rtl.lu/news/science-a…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom In other words, it is legitimate to worry about feedbacks and tipping points, but NOT legitimate to model them using an implausible concentration scenario for 2100. Give unto 2100 what is 2100s! For century time horizons, Real Options probably beat the precautionary principle.

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom Just last week @hausfath and @jritch extrapolated the [in my view pessimistic] @iea CPS & SPS scenarios to 2100, and conclude "the world is on a path to warm around 3C above pre-industrial levels by 2100 under policies and commitments currently in place."
thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath This is much closer to RCP4.5 than to RCP8.5. As they point out "this is a far cry from the 1.5C and 2C targets enshrined in the Paris agreements, but is also well short of the 4C to 5C warming in many “business as usual” baseline scenarios that continue to be widely used."

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath Don’t get me wrong. The world of RCP 4.5 is an ugly place, with warming of 2.0C to 4.5C by 2100. We absolutely must bend the arc towards the lower end of that range, or below. But it's not the 3.3 to 7.4C of RCP8.5, which generate most of the news stories.
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath If we have to act just as urgently, why does any of this matter? First, a robust coalition for climate action can only be built on bullet-proof science. When @IPCC_CH IPCC Assessment Report (AR6) appears in 2022, it cannot rest on implausible scenarios. about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath The second reason to stop depicting RCP 8.5 business-as-usual or baseline is that it is immoral. There may be practical argument for using fear as a motivator for climate action, but there is a name for using invented fears: it is called populism. about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath If you think I am exaggerating about the moral jeopardy into which some activists have fallen? Watch @GreenRupertRead telling a bunch of kids they may not reach adulthood. This would be unethical even if it were what the science said, which it is not.

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath @GreenRupertRead So back to 2030. At some point during the next 10 years, it will become clear that RCP 8.5, an utterly terrifying, high-end scenario when it was first mooted in 2007, can no longer be considered plausible, much less BAU. In the parlance, #RCP85isBollox.
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath @GreenRupertRead Growth in emissions will have levelled off, partly because China’s coal-fired surge is over, but also because of the hard work of millions of people around the globe in energy and transport. We should be celebrating that fact, not covering it up.
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath @GreenRupertRead We will be pretty sure we are tracking a medium-range scenario with horrendous climate impacts and huge uncertainty about what happens after 2100. But we have broken the back of the transition and will have line-of-sight to achieving the 2C Paris goal.
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath @GreenRupertRead If I am right, by 2030 we will be starting to see a glimmer of hope at the end of the climate change tunnel. We will have narrowed the range of outcomes, averted the worst, and seen the back of peak emissions. A much better place than where we are today.
about.bnef.com/blog/in-climat…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath @GreenRupertRead None of this should be taken as a call to complacency: to the contrary. Some have accused me of bad faith for highlighting the fact that #RCP85isBollox. All I want is to ensure the science base is robust. If not, we risk losing another decade, as we did with #Climategate.

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath @GreenRupertRead You think that is an exaggeration? Remember those 3000 or more papers describing RCP8.5 as BAU. They are out there in the literature, being cited, perhaps as we speak, in drafts of the @IPCC_CH's 2022 Assessment Report. That must not be allowed to happen. scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath @GreenRupertRead And what of the 52 papers so far published which use a scenario called RCP8.5-SSP3, a chimera which combines radiative forcing of 8.5W/m2 by 2100 with a socioeconomic pathway that cannot plausibly get close to that level. This is not robust science!
scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath @GreenRupertRead My big worry is that the @IPCC_CH's 6th Assessment Report risks the same problems as the 5th. It has already been decided that "SSP5-8.5 should be considered the highest priority" for modellers. The inevitable result is that it will be interpreted as BAU.
geosci-model-dev.net/9/3461/2016/gm…

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath @GreenRupertRead As I have said, I am confident that by 2030, all these problems will have been resolved; we will have a much better handle on the science and the uncertainties will be more bounded. But I do hope we don't have to wait until @IPCC_CH Assessment Report 7 in 2028 to get there!

@GretaThunberg @sunrisemvmt @Fridays4future @ExtinctionR @Peters_Glen @jritch @IEA @IPCC_CH @jrockstrom @hausfath @GreenRupertRead So. This thread started with me explaining why I think we'll see peak emissions by 2030. If you joined the thread part way, or if you want to read it on a loop to block out those holiday arguments, click here and start from the top. See you in 2020. Selah!

https://twitter.com/MLiebreich/status/1209761395996266496