Ryan Katz-Rosene, PhD Profile picture
Mar 12, 2020 5 tweets 5 min read Read on X
📢 So far, for the vid-ISA-Environment Conference we have:
COMMITTED: @heff_andrew @Laurence_God
Considering: @RosalesAntulio @JoshuaRamisch @charlesbroger (possibly a whole panel)
Ready to provide feedback/discussant: @ProfSMGibson
LOTS of LIKES, but need 10 more to commit...
Update:
COMMITTED: @heff_andrew @Laurence_God @SarahSharms @bentleyballan
Sort of committed(?): @pmmcc @somardrawoh
Willing discussants: @g_auld @ProfSMGibson
Need 8 more confirmed videos to go ahead. Let's make the PDF share for participants only - in case that's a concern?
Hi guys, despite two additional commitments (@JenIrisAllan @__michaelmurphy - THANKS!) we don't have enough participants to go ahead with vid-ISA-Environment. Too bad b/c I think idea is definitely doable, but understandable that everyone's got other priorities right now...
That said, keep your eyes on Jayson's timeline as he has developed a similar idea for ISA participants:
Finally, with the POSSIBILITY (not decided yet) of a cancelled CFHSS Congress, @esaccanada is developing contingency plans for moving our conference to a VIRTUAL SPACE. So stay tuned! (and stay safe out there)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ryan Katz-Rosene, PhD

Ryan Katz-Rosene, PhD Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ryankatzrosene

Aug 13
A very important paper was published yesterday, discussing the feasibility of limiting global warming to 1.5°C when considering a range of existing constraints.👇

The findings are indeed daunting, but maybe not as hopeless as many on this website seem to imply...

Quick 🧵 Image
2/ The study reviews chances of keeping global warming to within Paris Agreement bounds of 1.5C to 2.0C given the latest understandings of 5 key constraints: geophysical; technological; institutional; socio-cultural; and economic...
3/ They find that while it is possible - despite existing constraints - to remain below 1.6 °C of peak warming (which is a 'low overshoot' temperature which could eventually be brought back down to 1.5C), the *likelihood* of doing so is now below 50%... Image
Read 7 tweets
Jun 22
Was last week's heat dome unprecedented? NO, not by a long shot!

So why are most climate scientists very ALARMED about the warming signal they see in the historical record?

Because when you consider scale and temporality, the warming trend is clear, and alarming indeed!
🧵
2/ There've been many June heatwaves like this in the US before. And, the daily mean temp anomaly for Wednesday, June 19th (the peak day of the heat dome) wasn't very exceptional in much of the US East... (for that given day of the year). Image
3/ If we look at the month of June across the US SOUTHEAST going back to 1895, we can see that the region has been plenty warm before during the month of June (this record goes up to 2023)! Image
Read 10 tweets
Apr 5
It’s been six months since I posted this (semi-viral?) thread👇

So let’s take a renewed look: How has the debate between these two competing “climate urgency science narratives” evolved over the last half year?
🧵
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. Image
Read 12 tweets
Apr 5
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...🧵 Image
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/…
Read 13 tweets
Apr 3
🧵REQUIEM for a unified green left...

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...
Read 14 tweets
Apr 2
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.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(