"[a]n economic recovery tilted towards green stimulus and reductions in fossil fuel investments, it is possible to avoid future warming of 0.3 °C by 2050."
The use of the word "tilted" implies are rather minor shift, but the "strong green stimulus" is actually a ~1.5°C pathway ("moderate" is a ~2°C pathway).
I thought 1.5°C required a transformation? Did #SR15 get it wrong?
2/
#SR15: "Pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems (high confidence)"
Another issue I have with the framing is that I would think of "recovery" as being a short-burst (maximum a few years) of investment to achieve whatever objective ("recovery").
But, these "green stimulus" pathways are continuous investments to 2050. This is permanent change!
5/
Of course, we want permanent change, but I don't think this meshes so well with the term "recovery".
If I recover from being sick, does that mean I spend the rest of my life in intensive care?
I need to change my diet/lifestyle, permanently, not recover & return to normal?
6/
Current pledges put us on a path for 1.8°C or so in 2050, & if we follow a 1.5°C pathway, we shave off 0.3°C. This is still 0.3°C higher than where we are today (~1.2°C).
I think this is an important point to focus on, but the challenge is communicating these changes.
7/
The climate is a slow moving system, so deep mitigation (purple in top figure) leads to small & delayed changes in the temperature response (bottom figure).
This is my attempt to communicate the challenge, based on the SSP database (of course, too complex for lay audiences).
8/
Noting that the authors based the reference pathway on where we are heading (as opposed to the worst case RCP85-type pathway). This is the correct approach!
Using a RCP85-type pathway as a reference would make the benefits of mitigation ≫0.3°C...
One of the key arguments that Norway uses to continue oil & gas developments, is that under BAU it is expected that oil & gas production will decline in line with <2°C scenarios, even with continued investment.
Let's look closer at these projections & reality...
1/
Here is the projections from the 2003 report from the petroleum agency.
In reality (tweet 1) there was a dip around 2010, but production is now up around 250 million cubic again.
The forecast was totally & utterly WRONG!
2/
In 2011 there was a forecast for an increase in production to 2020, but then a decline. This is probably since they started to put the Johan Sverdrup field on the books.
The increase in production was way too low, again, they got it wrong.
CO2 emissions by fossil fuel:
* We thought coal peaked in 2014. No, & up another 1.1% in 2023
* Oil up 1.5%, on the back of a 28% increase in international aviation & China, but oil remains below 2019 level. 🤞
* Has the golden age of gas come to an end thanks to Russia?
2/
By top emitters:
* China up 4.0% & a peak this year would be a surprise
*US down 3.0%, with coal at 1903 levels
* India up 8.2%, with fossil CO2 clearly above the EU27
* EU27, down 7.4% with drops in all fuels
* Bunkers, up 11.9% due to exploding international aviation
Is the new @DrJamesEHansen et al article an outlier, or rather mainstream?
At least in terms of the key headline numbers, it seems rather mainstream, particularly if you remember most headline key numbers have quite some uncertainty!
The Remaining Carbon Budget for 1.5°C is now smaller because: 1) We have not reduced emissions in three years 2) Updated simple climate models because of updated historical aerosol emissions 3) Some new method choices
The update for 2°C has similar changes for each component, but because the budget is much bigger, the changes don't seem that dramatic. Not Nature Climate Change worthy...
The changes to the 1.5°C budget seem dramatic, because the budget is basically gone.
2/
These updates are not new. A few years back 1.5°C was considered "geophysically impossible", but not after a revised budget:
I wrote a post on the utility of 1.5°C budgets back then, obviously ignored. Also on non-CO2.