2. Why not put praise on the earlier Paris Agreement, which has a legal form & is the text countries agree to adhere too?
🤔 Perhaps many just do not know about the Paris Agreement (or was it Accord?), or confuse IPCC SR15 and Paris?
3. Scientists have been on net-zero for years. So have policy makers. The Paris Agreement did not happen in a vacuum, nor IPCC SR15, it built on the work over years, even decades.
IPCC SR15 is an assessment of the literature, not new science. Or is it?
4. IPCC AR5 was onto it...
Remember all those scenarios below zero, & complaints about BECCS?
And remember the high profile “carbon budget”, figure SPM10, that build on papers from 2009?
We knew about net-zero then...
5. Back in 2012 the Nordic countries were aiming for net-zero (carbon neutral) by 2050 (sorry, link is dead). It wasn’t cool then, no leader boards of x% of countries with net-zero targets…
8. Why weren't preeminent fossil energy experts lumping praise on IPCC AR5, earlier reports, early movers, & leading their industries out of fossil fuel dependence?
It is almost like people forgive GM for doing an EV ad...
🤷
9. The quoted IPCC SR15 text is great. Sharp, crisp, & I use it all the time. Hats off to the smart people that wrote it...
Though, we have known more or less the same for 20+ years, & failed to act.
And we are still failing to act...
10. I am not sure the IPCC focused on the net zero text anyway.
My favorite was: “Every bit of warming matters, every year matters, every choice matters”.
While not as catchy & more ambiguous, it will probably stand the test of time!
Here is a Kaya based projection we did 7 years ago. If a country continues along historical trends, the method is ok. If the country changes trends, the method is useless. See China. We were way out.
Though, for the EU, we will much better than the other study..
The Paris Agreement asked IPCC do to a Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C. This was done in the Paris Agreement "decision" text. This was why there was a 1.5°C report (interestingly not a "well below 2°C" report)
“It’s revealing that a lot of financial institutions are thinking about...But they aren’t being exposed to climate scientists who can make sure they get the details right.” @bencaldecott
I agree, but does missing details mean we are at talk & not action? @Oliver_Geden
2/
I coincidentally came across this: "confusion remains about concepts like carbon neutrality, climate neutrality, full decarbonization, and net zero carbon or net zero GHG emissions" from @JoeriRogelj
THREAD: Climate risks & scenarios
[based on a presentation]
Financial institutions are asked to assess climate risk “…, taking into consideration different climate-related scenarios, including a 2°C or lower scenario.”
So, which scenario(s) do they use?
1/
2. It depends on the risk!
Easiest to frame around where we are heading (black line - approximate)
Climate risk: We have risk already, but we are concerned about it getting worse
Transition risk: We are mitigating, but policy, technology, society might make that happen faster
3. There is likely a drop in emissions from COVID of ~7%, but the IEA (& others) expect a rebound. Most analysts think emissions will be flat(ish) in the next decade.
The goal is to get to net-zero CO₂ emissions. When? Short answer: the earlier the better...
Oslo had a plan that was distributed across sectors. It is fair to argue that some things were out of their control (CCS at Klemetsrud), but not all things.
There was meant to be a 40% reduction in transport, for example, with many local measures.
Here is how transport emissions were meant to go down. Perhaps Oslo did well on the collective transport, but how was progress across other transport sub-sectors?