3. Comparing 2011-2015 with 2016-2019 (global stocktake), CO₂ emissions have
* Declined in 64 countries: -0.16GtCO₂/yr
* Increased in the remainder: 0.37GtCO₂/yr
* Net increase: 0.21GtCO₂/yr
But emission reductions need to ramp up to 1-2GtCO₂/yr 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫...
4. The drop in 2020 was unprecedented, but it is a one off.
The thing with 1.5-2°C pathways, is that emission reductions of the size seen in 2020 need to happen 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 (& be done via means other than lockdowns).
We need a radical departure from the status quo.
5. Interlude: You can play around with the changes between countries (high, upper-middle, lower income) over five year periods, & see how growth rates are changing.
Growth rates are declining, but they need a 2020 like step change!
7. We expect some rebound in 2021, it is hard to avoid.
But, governments do have some control over how recovery money is spent & that is critical.
8. Even if all recovery funds went to renewables, active mobility infrastructure (walking, bikes), electric vehicles, service sectors (hit the hardest), etc, we still expect a rebound in 2021, but emissions may level out & decline soon after. There are some upfront "costs".
9. The worst outcome is to just press reset and go back to 2019, as if 2020 never happened. This would be a lost opportunity.
1. The @IEA is out with estimates of fossil energy CO₂ emissions for 2020:
* Primary energy down ~4%
* CO₂ emissions down 5.9% or 2GtCO₂
* Coal down 4%
* Oil down 8.6%
2. Our latest estimate (from yesterday) is 4.9% down. The main difference is in oil. Our method may not have picked up the drop in international bunkers. Time will tell...
"The reason we’re net zero is that we have this enormous renewables business ... all the avoided emissions that come with that" compensate for emissions in other investments.
Houston, we have a problem... This from climate finance champion Carney.
2. "Most large asset managers have a renewable energy fund. Simply having one does not make you net zero. ... Such commitments are not credible & represent greenwashing" @bencaldecott
3. "It’s virtually impossible for a company to be a net-zero company now" @FarsanAlexander
"It won’t matter how many solar panels one installs if we don’t reduce actual CO₂ emissions." @UlfErlandsson
2. There are a range of scenarios spanning the high-end (>5°C in 2100) to the low-end (<1.5°C in 2100). This shows the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (one of many scenario intercomparisons).
Out of these scenarios, which ones should be used for analysis?
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)