Thread by @Peters_Glen

Great article by @JamesGDyke et al on the lack of climate action over the last 30 years.

I don’t see the article so much as a critique of "net-zero", more an elegant critique of lack of action. The title does not represent the article (IMHO).

theconversation.com/climate-scient…

1/

“With hopes for a solution to the climate crisis fading again, another magic bullet was required”

The list of bullets:
* Afforestation
* CCS
* BECCS
* Other CDR (eg, DACCS, EW, ...)
* Overshoot scenarios
* Geoengineering

Always a technofix to keep it 5 minutes to midnight.

2/

"We struggle to name any climate scientist who at that time thought the Paris Agreement was feasible" [some exceptions]

"The price to pay for our cowardice: having to keep our mouths shut about the ever growing absurdity of the required planetary-scale carbon dioxide removal"

3

"In principle there is nothing wrong or dangerous about carbon dioxide removal proposals."

"[Some] carbon removal will be needed to mop up some of the emissions from sectors such as aviation and cement production."

4/

"The problems come when it is assumed that [Carbon Dioxide Removal or other technofixes] can be deployed at vast scale."

"This effectively serves as a blank cheque for the continued burning of fossil fuels and the acceleration of habitat destruction."

5/

"The only way to keep humanity safe is the immediate and sustained radical cuts to greenhouse gas emissions in a socially just way"

6/

"…another invisible line, the one that separates maintaining academic integrity & self-censorship. … In private, scientists express significant scepticism about the Paris Agreement, BECCS, offsetting, geoengineering & net zero"

[Maybe not net-zero, but all the others, yes]

7/

"[i]n public we quietly go about our work, apply for funding, publish papers & teach. The path to disastrous climate change is paved with feasibility studies & impact assessments."

[Next example, IPCC AR6?]

8/

The last paragraph is a bit strong for me. I don’t think “net-zero” is the problem per se, but the continual develop of innovative ways to climate targets alive. The infamous “it is always 5 minutes to midnight” (@Oliver_Geden).

After all, we do need (net)-zero emissions!

9/

I see the article has caused some stir, with everyone tweeting an opinion on "net".

I think the article describes our collective procrastination quite well. The "𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭 of net-zero" is perhaps justified?

Have a read (or listen as in my case) theconversation.com/climate-scient…

10/

This made me laugh:

Integrated Assessment Models "seemed like a miracle: you could try out policies on a computer screen before implementing them, saving humanity costly experimentation. … Unfortunately, they also removed the need for deep critical thinking."

11/11