@HannahEDaly @KOSullivanIT @IrishTimes Of course the "profile" of *measures* is different. That's exactly *why* we have to compare their relative effects - accurately! Effects on *temp rise*. If we don't compare *somehow* we have no basis for saying what is "cost-effective" between these sectors.
@HannahEDaly @KOSullivanIT @IrishTimes As for N2O: I don't understand at all. For N2O (as for CO2) GWP-100 and GWP* are identical, and there is no suggestion in the literature of any problem using this as a valid basis for "fungibility" of reductions between them - is there?
@HannahEDaly @KOSullivanIT @IrishTimes But again: "cost-effective" by definition means least cost for a given, consistently defined and assessed, *outcome*. If we don't compare common outcomes (temp rise) across CO2, N2O, CH4 mitigation, we are simply not doing cost-effectiveness analysis.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
