Future discourse analyses will find ample material how civil society orgs tried to link #ParisAgreement's bottom-up pledges w/ global temperature outcomes
[Spoiler Alert: 40% by 2030 insufficient for net-zero GHG 2050, but there's no "science-based EU target", it's all political]
[Spoiler Alert: 40% by 2030 insufficient for net-zero GHG 2050, but there's no "science-based EU target", it's all political]
The "7.6% p.a. reduction" claim comes from UNEP Emissions Gap Report, based on IPCC pathways with lots of CDR, going 'net negative' after 2065 (not shown in EGR 2019).
Does that mean European NGOs finally came to accept a net negative emissions strategy - in line with science?
Does that mean European NGOs finally came to accept a net negative emissions strategy - in line with science?
If you don't want to opt for massive amounts of 'net negative emissions' in 2nd half of century, your global pathway changes, with steeper annual reductions.
If you're against massive net negative (as those advocating 65% for EU 2030 usually are) then you need to aim for ~80%
If you're against massive net negative (as those advocating 65% for EU 2030 usually are) then you need to aim for ~80%
Thus, opting for EU 2030 target of 65% isn't 'scientific'. NGOs not opting for 80% or more is clearly 'political'.
[and I'm leaving out the issue if you can really come up with a 'scientific' way of burden-sharing. The #IPCC doesn't think so energypost.eu/warning-ipcc-e…]
#EUCLimateLaw
[and I'm leaving out the issue if you can really come up with a 'scientific' way of burden-sharing. The #IPCC doesn't think so energypost.eu/warning-ipcc-e…]
#EUCLimateLaw
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
