Despite COVID, emissions are still way too high.
To limit global warming to 1.5 C, we need to *rapidly*
(i) decarbonise energy use AND
(ii) reduce energy use AND
(iii) decarbonise land use AND
(iv) reduce land use
Yes, ALL of these things SIMULTANEOUSLY.
How are we doing?
THREAD
1/ To limit warming to 1.5 C, global energy use must be completely decarbonised.
But the opposite is happening! Emissions per unit of energy use (‘carbon intensity of energy’) have been INCREASING since 2000 (largely due to increases in the share of coal, primarily in China).
2/ Rapid decarbonisation of energy use requires both a rapid roll-out of renewables AND a rapid phase-out of fossils. Not either-or: both-and.
3/ What not everyone knows/accepts: to limit warming to 1.5 C without relying on speculative negative emissions technologies, energy use must also be rapidly reduced – by at least 40%, as the IPCC SR1.5 report shows.
REDUCING energy use requires reductions in economic activity (production & consumption), calling for strategies of #degrowth and #sufficiency, as review studies by Haberl et al @DominikWiederhofer & @jasonhickel@g_kallis confirm.
5/ Summary of the evidence here:
Haberl et al (2020): tinyurl.com/46ovan9a
Hickel and Kallis (2019): tinyurl.com/4w26lghg
Not everyone may be familiar with degrowth or sufficiency strategies (which above studies conclude are needed), so here are 3 studies to give a flavour.
Millward-Hopkins et al (2020) show that pursuing sufficiency, equity, collective provisioning systems & technical efficiency could allow providing decent living standards for 10 billion people with 60% less energy use than today @JKSteinberger@yl_oswald tinyurl.com/ychgfyd8
7/ D’Alessandro et al. (2020) model a degrowth scenario (vs a "green growth" scenario i.a.) and find that only the degrowth scenario is compatible with climate targets – and it also reduces inequality and unemployment. @SimoneDAlessa12@cieplinski
8/ Mastini et al. (2020) explain that a Green New Deal worth the calling must abandon economic growth and instead adopt degrowth and sufficiency strategies that could provide equitable wellbeing in a sustainable way. @r_mastini@g_kallis@jasonhickel
9/ Finally, a few words on land use. Not my area of expertise, but at least two things are clear, based on figures from the IPCC special report on Climate change & land:
First, total greenhouse gas emissions from land use are also going UP.
END/ Second, agricultural production is going up rapidly, which is what drives most of the land use emissions increase.
To tackle land use emissions, we need to rapidly reduce production and consumption of meat & dairy, stop deforestation, reduce food waste, etc.
Let's go?
END +1/ oohps, forgot to add the last figure...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
✈️Can Leeds meet its climate targets if Leeds City Council allows expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA)?
No.
Is LBA’s own climate impact assessment accurate?
No.
Here’s the latest evidence. I urge Leeds City Plans Panel to
read this and act on it conscientiously.
THREAD
2/ Leeds City Council has adopted a CO2 target for Leeds based on a CO2 budget in line with 66% chance of staying below 1.5 C (black dotted curve) and committed to work towards net-zero CO2 by 2030, roughly met by @LeedsClimateCom's net-zero 2033 trajectory (grey dotted curve).
3/ Both trajectories exclude LBA emissions (~18% of Leeds emissions). I adjusted them to account for LBA emissions. Dark green dotted curve = budget-based CO2 target for Leeds incl. LBA; light green dotted curve = net-zero 2033 trajectory scaled by current share of LBA emissions.
@Matthuber78 states that any environmental politics must secure people’s basic needs, strengthen the working class and tackle inequalities. Great, couldn't agree more!
But then why does Matt completely overlook the LONG list of Degrowth policies that do precisely that?
/2
A few examples of such Degrowth policies:
-Decommodify basic needs
-Universal Basic Services
-Universal Basic Income
-Cancel illegitimate debts
-job guarantee
-living wage
-reduce working time
-re-allocate productivity gains into work time reduction and job creation
/3
@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 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.