We make clear our patenting remarks refer to technology in climate change mitigation technologies (CCMT), category identified by EPO. Based on PATSTAT online and OECD Stat for analysis. @ThomasASpencer talks about all patenting in all OECD. IRRELEVANT!
Just plotting the movement of prices does not show tech change is under way. Diffusion yes, but real innovation? We have to explain both the fall in prices and the fall in patenting. The first does not negate the other. What about RE subsidies and a regulatory helping hand?
On RE and manufacturing. Look at facts for Germany. TFC for industry 58 MTOE, with 25% from electricity (IEA). Total RE consumption is 32MTOE, with 32% for industry, that is about 10 MTOE for industry (IRENA), only 17% of TFC. All data 2017/2018.
We haven't even got to technology capacities, costs, etc., the grid management problems that Germany is facing and the loss incurred because of these grid management issues, soaring bills for consumers and the like. e360.yale.edu/features/carbo…
This is Germany, the global leader. At the most charitable, they haven't even got it right yet, though they are trying. You think based on this India can bet our future in manufacturing will grow even if we stop all new coal, here and now?
Look up comparable figures for India and what do u think you will see?! To be fair and transparent, we should have clarified that India's coal dependence in industry is not only through elec. but also non-elec. consumption. I have the nos., but evangelists please check it out!!
Not my business to keep on answering those who do not read carefully, or provide an education what India's challenges are as a developing country, notwithstanding the hubris in Delhi.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The climate crisis just got incredibly worse!! The leading superpower, that refuses to acknowledge its historical responsibility for global warming, refuses to accept binding emission reduction targets has just undone whatever little it has been doing so far!! nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/…
Let us see who will have the honesty to tell the superpower, when their spokespersons mouth the words "keeping 1.5 deg within reach", will bluntly tell them to cease their hypocrisy.
It is an article of faith for the US in promoting the Paris Agreement that it will be able to implement its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by administrative actions and incentives to its businesses - meaning the massive trans-national corporations that dominate their economic life.
Three key reasons for such rejection: This criterion of success i) demands that no new "substantial" emissions take place in adaptation, ii) does not recognize any differentiation between developed and developing countries and iii) flies in the face of socio-economic realities.
Let us deconstruct this method of "gauging the success" of adaptation by examining this figure from the authors of this method.
Congratulations to @JimSkeaIPCC on his election as Chair of @IPCC_CH. At COP27, @mssrf and @NIAS_India were privileged to have him on our panel discussion at the India Pavilion on Climate Equity, Carbon Budgets and IPCC AR6 Scenarios. @moefcc @byadavbjp @JRBhatt60 @KanitkarT
My colleague @KanitkarT and I appreciated @JimSkeaIPCC willingness to listen and engage, though there was considerable distance between our views. We are encouraged by his post-election remarks, though the journey to achieving it will be a testing one in practice.
Congratulations too to the full Bureau elected to lead the IPCC through Seventh Assessment Cycle. . Includes good friend Prof. Raman Sukumar as Working Group II Vice-Chair and several others in the Bureau that we are privileged to know.ipcc.ch/2023/07/28/ipc…
Thank you @wang_seaver for a excellent analysis of current literature on 100%RE claims. Analysis of a kind that my colleague @KanitkarT, myself, and others including Sreeja Jaiswal, @Sreejaiswal, Aravindhan Nagarajan, @sciencebwoy, and Akhil Mythri) are partial to.
The paper titled "What the 100% Renewables Literature Gets Wrong" has this main conclusion - " Claims that Asia and Africa can easily achieve a clean energy transition at low cost using renewables and storage alone are bunk." India must take care!!
Thanks also for the callout to our work on scenarios, available here as policy briefs, and paper https://t.co/vKDjg29wZo. In this thread are some messages from @wang_seaver's work that stand out for me...twn.my/title2/climate… osf.io/p46ty/
Unhappily surprised by this contribution from a leading CGIAR scientist on climate and agriculture!! Not a word mentioned about the need for adaptation in agriculture. Focusing exclusively on mitigation.
Admits stringent 1.5 deg scenarios threaten food security in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South Asia (SA). Omits mention that this is a reversal of current trends that are increasing food security. Also totally neglects differentiation between & within countries in agriculture.
By a bizarre twist of logic the burden of mitigation is actually placed on small holders in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Let us follow this through. Step 1 - Accepts that stringent mitigation could compromise food security and increase hunger in SSA and SA.
MOONWALKING CLIMATE RESPONSIBILITY. This Nature article walks historical and current responsibility backward -- putting the onus on developing countries. Despite the pious initial remark of how responsibility for solutions shouldn't fall on those whose contribution is the least.
Nowhere does it step forward to say how and to what extent developed countries should take the lead in emissions reduction. Some ritual hand-wringing of course on the failure to provide the USD100 billion promise and the hope that they will now do better on finance.
What it is specific on is what developing countries should do. Low-income countries are to provide elaborate plans for climate action and development needs, "signalling their serious intent" to integrate the two. Signal to whom? The "rich" or their academic M&E specialists?