Thread by @JefimVogel

@pauleastwd @JKSteinberger @jasonhickel @WIRED It's in the IPCC SR1.5C report, Fig. 2.5. Of the scenarios meeting 1.5C with no or little overshoot, only one doesn't heavily rely on negative emissions technologies: That one is the "Low Energy Demand" (LED) scenario, which indeed involves large reductions in energy demand.

@pauleastwd @JKSteinberger @jasonhickel @WIRED The Low Energy Demand scenario is based on Grubler et al., 2018. nature.com/articles/s4156…

@pauleastwd @JKSteinberger @jasonhickel @WIRED New research from @exergy_paul & co however suggests that the LED energy demand reduction rates are unlikely to be reconcilable with the simultaneously assumed high rates of GDP growth: this would require a step change in energy/GDP decoupling well beyond historical precedents.

@pauleastwd @JKSteinberger @jasonhickel @WIRED @exergy_paul That suggests that meeting 1.5C without relying on speculative negative emissions technologies requires an economy that delivers energy demand reductions without structurally relying on (or pushing for) GDP growth. Degrowth describes such an economy (with lots of co-benefits).

@pauleastwd @JKSteinberger @jasonhickel @WIRED @exergy_paul This meta-review by Haberl et al. (2020) also shows that 1.5C-compatible GHG reductions require reducing energy demand: "large rapid absolute reductions of (...) GHG emissions cannot be achieved through observed decoupling rates"
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…

@pauleastwd @JKSteinberger @jasonhickel @WIRED @exergy_paul Finally, this study by @SimoneDAlessa12 & co, based a new macro-ecological model, also suggests that scenarios involving GDP growth (green growth) do not achieve 1.5C-compatible GHG reductions, wheras the Degrowth scenario does (and reduce inequality).
nature.com/articles/s4189…