Here is why it is so important to get methane emissions under control...
Compare the global warming contribution of methane under a scenario of +1% annual increase (left) vs. steady emissions (right).
Now imagine a -1% annual decline in CH4 emissions.
If we were able to reduce global CH4 emissions by 0.3% per annum, then CH4-emitting sub-sectors wouldn't be contributing to net warming (over a multi-decade period).
By the same token, we need to give credit where credit is due... The Canadian dairy sector, for instance, has seen a near 30% reduction in CH4 emissions over the last 3 decades. Over the same period of time it increased milk production by about 22%. (h/t @drsplace).
@drsplace Though, to complicate matters (it's never so simple!) Canada is a net importer of dairy products (which means some dairy CH4 emissions are generated elsewhere). But also complicating, the number of biogas facilities turning manure into electricity is growing...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) The thread noted a divide between what I called “accelerationists” who were sounding alarm that 2023’s remarkable warming was the beginning of SOMETHING NEW, and those I (later) called “observationalists”, who claimed 2023’s extreme warmth fits within EXPECTED WARMING trends.
2) These positions continue to be expressed. @MichaelEMann, for instance, is adamant that “the truth [about global warming] is bad enough”; that the warming we saw in 2023 can be explained by known climate physics; and that 2023 fits within the modelled warming.
This post by @FoodProfessor claims that the Trudeau Government purposely built the @ClimateInstit and @SP_Inst as part of its "lobbying machine" and that they are "mandated to advocate blindly" for the carbon tax.
This is a baseless claim.
Thread...🧵
1) This story starts in 1988 when the Mulroney government created an Independent advisory council of experts called the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy. For 25 years it produced numerous reports on environmental policy, advising governments.
2) Then in 2013 the Harper government cancelled the NREE's funding because it did not like the advice it was receiving (in particular regarding carbon pricing). News story about it here: cbc.ca/news/politics/…
I don't know if the left has ever been unified, but today there seems to be a massive and growing rift about the environment - and especially climate - amongst socialists.
I now worry these differences are irreconcilable...
2. The discord seems to come down to fundamentally different worldviews shaping interpretations and definitions of modernity, development, progress, capitalism, justice, Marx's intentions, strategy, the future...
Many people seem absolutely fed up with "the other side". FED. UP.
3. The Degrowth Left (and this is sure to be a caricature of 'the ideology', not thinking of any one individual) seems FED UP with what it believes Ecomodern Socialism is: a sort of capitalism-as-usual in disguise...
It's worth emphasizing that because the scheduled carbon tax rate increase is flat ($15/tonne/year through to 2030), the *relative* weight increase declines over time.
There's a few ways that the carbon tax increase may *feel* less consequential as time goes on. Mini 🧵
First, as Chris has pointed out, this year it's a 23% increase on the tax rate relative to last year. But next year it will be an 18.75% increase and so on until it just stays fixed at $170/tonne - no longer increasing any more, year after year...
Second, due to inflation, the relative weight of an increase could also decline.
Ex: Currently the tax *increase* adds about 3.3c per litre ($17.6c/L). A 50L tank of gas has $8.80 tax. If the avg pre-tax gas price goes up, the relative size of the tax increase per tank declines.
Here's the abridged story of how NEOLIBERALISM became dominant (as I understand it). This is also a story with CLIMATE implications.
I draw on works by Harvey, Klein, Helleiner, Ruggie, and others.
(Keen to hear amendments, additions, critiques from fellow political economists)
1) It's 1944 and the soon-to-be victors of WWII gather at Bretton Woods to design the Post-War global economy. They develop an international monetary system largely seeking stability; one that fosters cooperation and prosperity through international trade and growth.
2) This model of 'embedded liberalism' sought a balance between what was seen as volatile laissez-faire market capitalism on one hand, and protectionist (even authoritarian) state interventionism on the other. In domestic terms, it lent itself to Keynesian 'demand-side' policies.
1. Speaking of tipping points: I believe the world has recently tipped into the early stages of one of the most profound transformations humanity has ever endured. It will take place over the next 50 years or so.
🧵on this fascinating and terrifying time to be alive!
2. The transformation is being ushered in by major demographic, technological, and ecological changes. These are mutually-reinforcing in some ways, making the transformation feel lightning fast (in human terms). The late 21st Century will look fundamentally different from today.
3. First, two demographic shifts which are profoundly consequential: i) Global population will for the first time in human history peak and *trend* downward (the rate of growth already peaked years ago) ii) the shift from a mostly-rural to mostly-urban population continues.