@KanitkarT@vnamas@3rdworldnetwork@JMauskar DECODING THE BS ON CARBON NEUTRALITY :
Paris Agreement (PA) calls for global emissions and removals of GHGs to be balanced by mid-century. Does NOT ask for individual countries to do so.
Only equitable basis to this goal -- Developed countries reach zero emissions or at least carbon neutrality even EARLIER than mid-century. Developing countries can have time, individually depending on their national circumstances, until later, even much later than mid-century.
Developed countries declaring carbon neutrality by 2050 means they will continue to maximise their appropriation of the global carbon budget as much as possible. Before the faint-hearted swoon at mention of the B word, this simply means emitting as long and as much as they can
Actually they want to postpone tough climate action even more -- Hence sudden popularity of "negative" emissions in modelling and the "oh so important" Article 6 (carbon trading) negotiations. And covering up long term dependence on oil and gas.
BTW, they also want to cheat on KP-era CDM credits, and not pay up. Sudden popularity of "nature based solutions", "farming systems approach", etc. Academia collaborates globally by framing scientific questions without differentiation. The plea is "climate emergency"
China cleverly hoists the developed countries on their own slogans. Hence they first accepted peaking year (given their huge current/recent emissions) and now even carbon neutrality, while maximising cumulative emissions. What should India do?
Excellent, robust option for India is to declare our right to a fair share of the global carbon budget for a 2 deg warming with 50% avoidance probability. Faint-hearted please note, this is again a statement of how long and how much we will need the use of fossil fuels.
No statement of peaking year, no carbon neutrality date. They will happen when they happen. Believe me, if we insist, the geeks will go back and redo their models. Or, they may not. No model was redone when US refused to ratify the PA, and then marched out.
This is not the scenic route to global cooperation. But definitely more realistic, given the mood in the West that mocks at principles and values as "looking for the boat that has sailed." The message can be delivered softly and explained - but it must be delivered.
Yes, we must take care of our people. But thats our problem, always has been. As they say in air travel, put on your mask before you help others. Same story -- if we don't lift our people up, we cant save the world either.
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?