Ok dudes I know tensions are high, Georgia is exceptionally interesting right now (can I capitalize🍑? because I want to) but:
a lot of the rhetoric around sending a bunch of ppl from liberal northern/western states to live here for a couple months is really uncomfortable. (1/n
GA is interesting because people here have been doing the work. This has been a blue state that has been voter suppress'd into being red for..years. Decades?
Trust me: I know these races are urgently important for climate action
But it says a lot that suddenly, after massive effort by Stacey Abrams & many, many others for YEARS, when we're almost there....that suddenly there's a "we got this, we'll be there soon to save the day" vibe
This does not make people trust the movement more.
Honestly not trying to dunk on anyone but I would like to see a slightly more considered approach to the "Brooklyn moves to Georgia for Christmas and then leaves" narrative.
I moved here from Oakland, a city I love in part bc it's clear so many people love it (yes, from Barbara Lee's to John Lewis', now Nikema Williams' district!) and was worried I wouldn't find that here.
People love this city. Honoring that love & that competency matters.
<3
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A 2035 deadline is very good. We /must/ do this. For the people that have suffered, are suffering, and will suffer as a result of fossil fuel combustion.
Climate is a huge part of this but it's not everything, and there are MASSIVE disparities in who suffers.
I'm fairly comfortable saying that if you are going to mine coal (with the CO2 implications and all), the PRB is one of, if not the best, place in the world to do it.
The coal is pretty clean other than carbon (we mine there ~bc of the Clean Air Act), remediation is relatively easy (very thick shallow seams in flat, dryish land), and bc mining started with the advent of the environmental movement, things proceeded with that regulatory context.
Managing stormwater is a huge challenge, and climate change isn't making it any easier. If you've ever been to a wastewater plant, you've probably heard about some of the bonkers challenges that excess stormwater can cause.
In today's edn of "You did what in Excel??": new tool!
Just got notification that our first paper on the cost model we built for @iDST_Team was accepted, so I wanted to do a little thread on the model.
Basic point: distributed stormwater infrastructure (like swales) can help a lot. But it's really hard to tell how much it costs.
Big issue: people can be hesitant to commit to infra like bioswales, raingardens, and porous pavements if they don't have a good idea of how it will perform.
Doubly true when 1) using public money for 2) safety-critical infrastructure that 3) replaces something they understand
As a Californian who now lives in a state that doesn't have an RPS, I share the rage about slow climate action, + questions about what it means to move faster.
Contribution for now: new paper + model of CA utility-specific committed emissions to 2050.
What we find: CA's targets are reasonable. A 2045 decarbonization deadline doesn't strand much infrastructure -- just letting plants retire at the end of their typical lifespans essentially results in full decarbonization by 2047, assuming you don't build more FF plants.
2020: T-Point 2. A not-yet-online fossil demonstration.
Quote: "It requires a lot of engineering to ensure a natural gas-fired combustion turbine will operate reliably //and last for decades// without major component failure."
Cool, cool, yes, innovating fossil fuels in 2020.
2019: the Egypt Megaproject. 14.4 GW of fossil capacity.
Sure. People need power, it's pretty efficient...being like "oh hey this was awesome because Siemens got a big contract" is a little :/