Thread by @mclaren_erc

1/15 Today a group of 23 climate researchers published a myth-busting article on net-zero and offsetting in Sweden’s Dagens Nyheter (Daily News). dn.se/debatt/vilsele…
In this thread I paraphrase our arguments in English ...

2/15 Reaching net-zero by 2050 is not enough to solve the climate crisis: carbon budgets will be exceeded before then at current emission rates, and we cannot rely on speculative and uncertain negative emissions technologies to compensate.

3/15 Nor can ‘nature based solutions’ compensate for continued fossil emissions. While important, recapture of carbon by NBS is limited, slow, and insecure in a still-changing climate.

4/15 Net zero targets and climate compensation don’t guarantee increased incentives for emission reductions. Cheap emissions offsets from overseas undercut the incentives to make domestic emission reductions [as do expectations of _future_ negative emissions].

5/15 Increasing emissions offsetting will not help low-income countries meet their Paris Agreement commitments. Poor countries will need any emission reductions that can be implemented domestically to meet their own targets and cannot sell them to rich countries as offsets.

6/15 We can’t offset continued emissions in rich countries by paying for the expansion of renewable energy overseas. New renewables in growing economies are just adding generating capacity, and would probably be developed anyway.

7/15 It would be irresponsible to rely on new technologies for geological carbon storage to solve the problem. Such technologies are costly, energy-intensive, and unproven as whole systems.

8/15 We cannot store more carbon by replacing old growth forests with tree plantations. If an old-growth forest is felled, it can take centuries to recreate an equivalent store of carbon in a new forest [even if harvested timber is put into long-term uses like construction].

9/15 Tropical reforestation is not necessarily a win-win solution for nature and locals. A narrow focus on carbon storage puts indigenous and forest peoples’ livelihoods, cultures and rights under threat. [And funding this with carbon offsets adds to the pressures.]

10/15 Each tonne of carbon dioxide is not equal, and shouldn’t be treated interchangeably. Emissions today can't be offset by future removals. Emissions from luxury consumption are less important than those for basic needs. Fossil emissions can't be offset by biological storage.

11/15 Products and travel that are sold as "climate neutral” or “climate positive" because of offsetting still have a climate footprint. Such marketing is misleading. We contribute more to climate solutions by buying less.

12/15 The researchers recommend focusing on measures to deliver real domestic emission reductions of 12 to 15 percent per year, coupled with drastically increased direct climate financing to poorer countries to support both mitigation and adaptation.

13/15 They also recommend separate targets for negative emissions and emission reductions, with investments in sustainable negative emissions techniques funded directly, not through offsetting.

14/15 And they suggest working to halt production and use of fossil fuels, which is the fundamental problem of the climate crisis through an ‘international fossil disarmament agreement' [or a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.]

15/15 The article was convened by @ResearchersDesk. Thanks to all the organisers and contributors including @mariaujohannson @kevinclimate @alasdairskelton @FloraHajduSLU @IsakStoddard
@wim_carton @ak_ringsmuth @erikhuss @linegreis @StephenWoroniec @NilsMarkusson

P.S. For those determined to read the original article (in Swedish) - you can register for free to read it here campaigner.dn.se/prenumerera/dn…