"Human-caused climate warming stops when humans stop adding CO₂ to the atmosphere, & emissions of other greenhouse gases are declining sufficiently" (text from @KA_Nicholas)

A THREAD on a recent presentation on net-zero emissions...
slideshare.net/GlenPeters_CIC…
2. The near-linear relationship between global warming & CO₂ emissions allows a remaining carbon budget to be defined.

This remaining carbon budget can be distributed over time in many different ways, leading to different 'net-zero' years.
3. It is possible to distribute the remaining carbon budget in a way that it never goes below zero (the brown area is the remaining carbon budget).

This is a simplification of reality, but a helpful comparison to other pathways.
4. It may be too difficult or costly to get all CO₂ emissions to zero, & we may instead use Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) to offset some of those emissions, such as through modest afforestation.

This means CO₂ emissions go down 𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐥𝐲 slower in the short-term.
5. Nearly all cost-optimising emission scenarios, in contrast, have large-scale CDR. This leads to lower CO₂ reductions in the short-term, large-scale CDR, & a peak & decline temperature profile (overshoot).

CO₂ reductions in the short term are only 𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐥𝐲 lower.
6. These emission profiles have two components:
E) Emissions from sources (e.g., burning fossil fuels)
R) Removals from sinks (e.g., growing a forest)

The "net" is N=E-R, emissions minus removals.

At net-zero, E<R, & since removals are physically constrained, so are emissions.
7. There is a lot of debate on net-zero, but this proposal by @KA_Nicholas gets around the issue (& includes non-CO₂ emissions)

"Human-caused climate warming stops when humans stop adding CO₂ to the atmosphere, & emissions of other greenhouse gases are declining sufficiently"
8. Why do we need CDR in the first place? Well, it may be a more effective way to eliminate all emissions from the 'difficult-to-abate' sectors.
science.sciencemag.org/content/360/63…

All tools are needed - efficiency, dematerialisation, technology - CDR wipes up the remaining emissions.
9. There are also non-CO₂ emissions, such as methane from cows & paddy rice, nitrous oxide from fertilisation, air pollutants (causes a 'cooling')

CDR may be needed to offset some warming from non-CO₂, but since most non-CO₂ emissions are short-lived, CDR may not be needed
10. There are many CDR options, but all are limited by scale, in most cases maturity, & in most cases permanence.

Therefore, we should be frugal in their use, & not put all our eggs in the CDR basket.

Sort of obviously, it makes sense to reduce emissions first...
11. Net-zero emissions are the latest rage, but also very confusing:
* Global cost optimal pathways frame the debate
* Net-zero CO₂ & GHG emissions differ
* Loopholes abound
* Ambiguity rules in this space

A good summary of the issues
nature.com/articles/d4158…
12/12. All this complexity, when there is such a simple solution...

Here is the presentation
slideshare.net/GlenPeters_CIC…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Glen Peters

Glen Peters Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Peters_Glen

28 Apr
🧵 on alternatives to "net-zero"

"CO₂-induced global warming stops when anthropogenic CO₂ emissions balance with anthopogenic CO₂ removals"

is a long version of

"CO₂-induced global warming stops with (net-)zero CO₂ emissions"

1/
In short-form: "...emissions balance with removals"

In long-form: "anthropogenic emissions from sources balance with anthropogenic removals from sinks"

I have basically used UNFCCC language, not IPCC language. These policy makers had it right all along!

2/
Twitter was very divided on zero versus net-zero. Though, there are many reasons. Clearly, science & policy are getting blurred here. Many say "zero" because "net" means continued use of fossil fuels.

I suspect technically, "net" is more correct, but not sure 100% correct.

3/
Read 9 tweets
27 Apr
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
Read 11 tweets
20 Apr
The @IEA is out early with projected energy & CO₂ emissions for 2021:

Energy:
2020: ⬇️ ~4%
2021: ⬆️ 4.6%, 0.5% above 2019 levels (full rebound)

Global fossil energy CO₂ emissions:
2020: ⬇️ 5.8%, or ~2GtCO₂
2021: ⬆️ 4.8%, or ~1.5GtCO₂

Everyone wanted back to normal🤔

1/ Image
My guestimate was 3.5% as of April 2021, so quite some lower.

My method is very aggregated, based on GDP & historical trends in CO₂/GDP. I would trust the IEA much more with disaggregated approaches... Or?

2/ Image
Projections change over time. This is the projection I made in January, it was for 3% growth (not 3.5%). The difference? @IMFNews increased their projected GDP growth.

3/ Image
Read 4 tweets
18 Apr
Do you remember when 1.5°C was a “geophysical impossibility”, then came possible after a single study?

I forgot all about this study in the “virtually impossible” discussion, but I remember at the time I reacted to that framing…

1/

rdcu.be/vXeB
The study essentially argued that based on the AR5 carbon budgets, viewed from 2014, there was seven years (2021) until the 1.5°C carbon budget was used, & therefore 1.5°C was essentially a "geophysical impossibility".

They had a new method with a more realistic budget.

2/
The @CarbonBrief post was titled: "Why the 1.5°C warming limit is not yet a geophysical impossibility"

The authors wrote: "[A]lthough 1.5°C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, it remains a very difficult policy challenge."

3/

carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why…
Read 10 tweets
16 Apr
Despite China building more coal capacity (net), coal use has been flat in the decade (green). This means the coal power utilisation rate is declining.

Coal is going down in Europe & the US, but up in most other places.

1/ Image
And here is the same figure as a line chart, which makes it easier to compare countries and see the trends... Image
There are much more ups & downs in coal production. Most of the differences (to consumption) are likely to relate to stock piles (& statistical differences).

3/ Image
Read 4 tweets
9 Apr
Finland had a special year in 2019, worth a look...

In terms of Primary Energy, the largest energy source in Finland is now bioenergy, passing oil in 2019!

Finland also has a high share of nuclear...

1/
As of 2019, Finland now emits less CO₂ than Sweden & Norway in aggregate terms.

Finnish CO₂ emissions went down 9% in 2019.

Interesting to see how things look in 2021 (after 2020 changes).

2/
Though, CO₂ emissions per person are still relatively high in Finland, more than twice the global average.

In good news, Finnish CO₂ emissions per person are falling relatively fast.

3/
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!