Share this page!

Oliver Geden Profile picture
Twitter logo
5 Oct, 7 tweets, 7 min read
Good that Fridays for Future activists start dealing more and more with the nitty-gritty details of EU #climate policymaking. But with several factual errors and questionable claims in this article, they are risking their credibility.
A short thread [1/n] #EUClimateLaw
You can of course criticize EU #climate policy for not being ambitious enough, but claiming that "the EU is cheating with numbers" needs to be backed up with very strong arguments.
medium.com/@GretaThunberg…
[2/n] #EUClimateLaw
Let's start with FFF authors' core argument that EU is cheating because the 55% are counted from 1990 onwards not from 2018
The EU has never claimed otherwise. 1990 has always been the base year for EU headline #climate targets (as for many others in #UNFCCC)
[3/n] #EUClimateLaw
The 2nd argument is more credible. Not including these emission sources is certainly problematic. But it's not 'cheating' by EU, it's standard #UNFCCC accounting. So why blame the EU?
(plus, consumption-based accounting isn't straightforward, ask @Peters_Glen)
[4/n] #EUClimateLaw
3rd one is tricky, but nevertheless incorrect to claim that including sinks reduces effort >5 % points, even if Bert Metz said so euractiv.com/section/climat…
3 wks ago, I myself miscalculated initially. Effect is ~2%, as now often reported

[5/n] #EUclimatelaw
To conclude: it's legitimate criticizing EU #climate policy, but if you want any serious response from policymakers, invest more effort in fact checking
With such a huge follower base (& RTs) there comes a great deal of responsibility
medium.com/@GretaThunberg…
[end] #EUclimatelaw
An addendum: @GretaThunberg et al. now made a change to the original piece, adding the correct number for including sinks in EU target calculation (2%), but keeping the questionable one (5%)
medium.com/@GretaThunberg…
[add 1] #EUClimateLaw

• • •

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

Keep Current with Oliver Geden

Oliver Geden 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 @Oliver_Geden

Oliver Geden Profile picture
23 Sep
Certainly a major step forward that China now aims to achieve 'carbon neutrality' by 2060, but it can't be directly compared to EU's and UK's targets for 'climate neutrality' by 2050.
Net zero GHG harder to achieve than net zero CO2, takes 10-20 yrs more
bbc.com/news/science-e…
The main reason is that non-CO2 emissions like nitrous oxide (N20) and methane (CH4) are much harder or impossible to mitigate, so they'll need to be offset by CO2 removal, which takes longer. Below global pathways. For countries, it depends on their specific emissions profile
Confusion around net-zero CO2 & net-zero GHG is widespread (see thread below)
Rule of thumb: whenever you hear 'net zero', ask "CO2 or GHG"? If only CO2, then add 10-20 years if you compare to EU or UK
Usually, national climate targets are in GHG, not CO2

Read 6 tweets
Oliver Geden Profile picture
19 Sep
A bit disturbing that #showyourbudgets contributes to ongoing confusion abt net-zero targets
Net zero CO2 ≠ net zero GHG ('climate neutral'), the latter reached 10-20 yrs later in scenarios due to harder-to-abate non-CO2, offset by CDR
National targets usually set in GHG not CO2
As you can see in global #IPCC pathways, most of the residual emissions at the time of net-zero (and later) are non-CO2, mainly methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture
swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2020R… Image
The same applies to the European Union's emissions trajectory towards net zero.
Residual emissions are to a large extent non-CO2 from agriculture
swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2020R… Image
Read 8 tweets
Oliver Geden Profile picture
17 Sep
EU #Climate Target Plan 2030 and accompanying impact assessment now out
ec.europa.eu/clima/policies… Image
Scanning for removals-related issues in #EU2030 impact assessment...
This - creating an AFOLU pillar (LULUCF + agricultural non-CO2 emissions) - seems a sensible approach. Could help to clearly distinguish roles of ecosystem-based & technological CO2 removal in EU #climate policy Image
Why suddenly all the talk about non-CO2 from agriculture? That's because these are projected to form the largest bloc of remaining ('residual') emissions in 2050 (if everything else - in power, transport, industry sectors - works out as planned) Image
Read 6 tweets
Oliver Geden Profile picture
14 Sep
Leaked #EU2030 #climate target plan indicates that @EU_Commission wants to fully integrate LULUCF into target accounting and enhance land-use and forestry sink t by 2030.
A sensible step, but it gives EU ~5 percentage points on the 2030 balance sheet without additional action Image
We anticipated this move already in our SWP Research Paper "Unconventional Mitigation: Carbon Dioxide Removal as a New Approach in EU Climate Policy"
swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2020R… Image
background info: It's a little known fact that LULUCF emissions and removals are measured/accounted and reported, but not (fully) included in overall EU target achievment calculations
swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2020R… Image
Read 5 tweets
Oliver Geden Profile picture
9 Sep
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] Image
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? Image
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%
Read 4 tweets
Oliver Geden Profile picture
1 Jul
"Unconventional Mitigation: Carbon Dioxide Removal as a New Approach in EU Climate Policy" - my new SWP Research Paper together with @FelixSchenuit
bit.ly/SWP20RP08
A Thread on why a #ClimateNeutralEU is impossible without CDR, and what the EU should do about it
(1/n)
Trying to reach net zero emissions will lead to a certain level of residual ('hard to abate') emissions, which will need to be offset via CO2 removal options. This is an often overlooked aspect of global GHG mitigation pathways (below for 1.5C, according to #IPCC)
(2/n)
Since methane & nitrous oxide (mainly #agriculture) represent large share of residual emissions, scenarios achieve net zero GHG 15-20 years later than net zero CO2 (b/c of need for more CDR)
If you compare national GHG targets with global, 2067 is the benchmark, not 2050
(3/n)
Read 14 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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @Oliver_Geden