IPCC: By 2050 a Brazil-sized area of new forests and/or crops may be needed to meet 1.5°C climate goal…
No, this is not the new Shell scenario, this is the IPCC SR15 Summary for Policy Makers. These are scenarios with no or limited overshoot...
ipcc.ch/sr15/
1/
No, this is not the new Shell scenario, this is the IPCC SR15 Summary for Policy Makers. These are scenarios with no or limited overshoot...
ipcc.ch/sr15/
1/
Shell requires some “700m hectares of land would be required over the century, an area approaching that of Brazil”.
[Why Brazil, that is 850Mha, Australia 770Mha?]
This is a similar area to the favoured “Low Energy Demand” (LED) scenario.
carbonbrief.org/analysis-shell…
2/
[Why Brazil, that is 850Mha, Australia 770Mha?]
This is a similar area to the favoured “Low Energy Demand” (LED) scenario.
carbonbrief.org/analysis-shell…
2/
Ok, people like spruiking the Low Energy Demand (LED) scenario. I am fine with that.
Despite the title, LED uses just as much land for forests as Shell.
It is a case of low energy demand AND carbon dioxide removal (not either/or). Do people get this?
nature.com/articles/s4156…
3/
Despite the title, LED uses just as much land for forests as Shell.
It is a case of low energy demand AND carbon dioxide removal (not either/or). Do people get this?
nature.com/articles/s4156…
3/
Shell uses 183EJ bioenergy in 2100, about the median of a 1.5°C scenario with no or limited overshoot (LED uses about half that).
Shell therefore will use about 400Mha for bioenergy, & LED uses about half that.
4/
Shell therefore will use about 400Mha for bioenergy, & LED uses about half that.
4/
No, low, or high overshoot, whatever you want to call your 1.5°C scenario, they all have huge implications for land.
Shell Sky is by no means an outlier.
Brazil is ~850Mha. The four IPCC illustrative pathways all cross that in 2100, even double it.
ipcc.ch/sr15/
5/
Shell Sky is by no means an outlier.
Brazil is ~850Mha. The four IPCC illustrative pathways all cross that in 2100, even double it.
ipcc.ch/sr15/
5/
“when comparing energy-related CO₂ emissions alone, the pathways for the [Shell Sky] 1.5°C & “well-below 2°C” are also similar, reaching net-zero around 2070. The key difference…Sky 1.5 requires major reforestation – some 700m hectares of land ...”
carbonbrief.org/analysis-shell…
6/
carbonbrief.org/analysis-shell…
6/
Sky is high on most fossil fuels in comparison to other 1.5°C scenarios 🤔, but is super high on solar 👏.
Also see my post from 2018 (still holds it seems) cicero.oslo.no/no/posts/cicer…
7/
Also see my post from 2018 (still holds it seems) cicero.oslo.no/no/posts/cicer…
7/
Shell uses a bucket load of Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS), but a lot less than its IPCC peers...
Why are the fossil energy companies the ones conservative on the deployment of CCS? 🤔
8/
Why are the fossil energy companies the ones conservative on the deployment of CCS? 🤔
8/
Although Shell calls it a 1.5°C scenario, it actually emits more CO₂ than your average 1.5°C scenario.
It seems they have taken a rather liberal interpretation of the remaining carbon budget uncertainties (~60% higher than expected from SR15 after deducting 3 years)
9/
It seems they have taken a rather liberal interpretation of the remaining carbon budget uncertainties (~60% higher than expected from SR15 after deducting 3 years)
9/
"despite its ”highly ambitious” framing, [Shell Sky 1.5°C] is, in fact, nearly identical to its 2°C predecessor"
Read the article by @Josh_Gabbatiss @CarbonBrief
carbonbrief.org/analysis-shell…
[And apologising for taking an IPCC detour...]
10/10]
Read the article by @Josh_Gabbatiss @CarbonBrief
carbonbrief.org/analysis-shell…
[And apologising for taking an IPCC detour...]
10/10]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
