Thread by @dwallacewells

“If one is to believe recent IPCC reports, then gone are the days when the world could resolve the
climate crisis merely by reducing emissions.” @wim_carton is exceptionally incisive about the hype of negative emissions. (1/x, with thanks to @Peters_Glen) researchgate.net/publication/34…

“Avoiding global warming in excess of 2°C/1.5°C now also
involves a rather more interventionist enterprise: to remove vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere, amounts that only increase the longer emissions refuse to fall.”

“The basic problem with
this idea is that the technologies supposed to deliver these ‘negative emissions’ currently do not exist
at any meaningful scale.”

“Given the large uncertainties surrounding their feasibility, their expected
effects on land use change, food security and biodiversity, and their scalability, it moreover seems
improbable that they ever will.”

“Indeed, there appears to be something of an unspoken consensus
among scientists that the mitigation scenarios represented in the IPCC increasingly mirror science
fiction-writing.”

“Take the example of Shell. While not exactly known for its vanguard mitigation actions, the company
recently released a document in which it outlines its vision to keep global warming to ‘well below
2°C.’”

“Unsurprisingly perhaps, Shell’s ‘most ambitious climate scenario’ turns out to include substantial fossil fuel use well into the future. It for example assumes that demand for oil will grow
until about 2025, and then decrease only gradually.”

“By 2050, the year when the world needs to reach net zero emissions in order to stay below 1.5°C, oil demand in this scenario would still account for
about 85% of current consumption.”

“By 2070, the net zero target for 2°C, fossil fuel production is still
responsible for 16.5 GtCO2, or almost half of what it is today.”

“For Shell to be able to claim that these estimates are compatible with the targets of the Paris Agreement... would require that “some 10,000 large carbon capture and storage facilities are built, compared to fewer than 50 in operation in 2020.’”

“To reach 1.5°C, the company then imagines that an additional effort could be made by planting ‘another Brazil in terms of rainforest.’” No big deal.

“Invoking a future of large-scale negative emissions in this way...fulfills a very clear function. It suggests that there is no need to cut fossil fuel production before its economic
value has been fully recovered, no need for drastic short-term changes.”

“Given the urgency of the climate problem, this surely seems extraordinary.”

“Is Shell making
these numbers up? An analysis by Carbon Brief suggests” — miraculously — “that the math does indeed add up.”

“Shell’s projections of future coal,
oil and gas demand, and of the scale at which NETs could be deployed, are all broadly in line with those
of 2°C-compatible IPCC scenarios. If anything, Shell’s scenario is at the lower end of negative
emissions models.”

“In itself, of course, it is unremarkable that a fossil fuel company would use all means possible to help
justify the continued use of oil and gas, including fostering narratives about the large-scale deployment
of future ‘carbon unicorns.’”

“More surprising is the fact that this logic appears fully internalized in mainstream climate scenarios, in other words, that IPCC reports appear to feature emission reduction pathways that seem fully compatible
with massive continued fossil fuel use in the medium term.”

“More than a ‘moral hazard,’ this suggests some fairly hazardous scientific morals.” This is all just from the introduction to the paper—much more from @wim_carton here (x/x): researchgate.net/publication/34…