First, there are a lot of places where Tim and I agree. We agree on the need to replace fossil fuels with clean energy, and to get emissions down to zero. We agree GDP is a poor proxy for human wellbeing, and that modern economies have huge problems with inequality. 2/
Where we differ is on whether technology allows us to "decouple" economic activity from its environmental impact. 3/
I'm a technological optimist. I think that we can get the services we enjoy from fossil fuels today – heating our homes, driving our cars, consuming good food, buying consumer goods – using clean energy sources like solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal. 4/
For example, electric cars can replace internal combustion engines. Veggie based alternatives and lab-grown meats can replace many of the billion cows we have today. 5/
When Obama came into office in 2009 solar panels were $350 per MWh; when Biden came into office in 2021 they were $35 per MWh, a factor of ten drop. During the same time battery prices have also fallen by a factor of ten, and wind by a factor of three. 6/
I think we can continue theses trends, and ultimately reach zero emissions by replacing all of our fossil fuels with clean energy while at the same time building human prosperity, particularly in poor and middle income countries. 7/
Rich countries – members of the OECD – have on aggregate reduced their emissions over the past 15 years. OECD country emissions peaked their emissions in 2005, and in 2019 had reduced them by 12% (much more in 2020, but we won't count that). 8/
Accounting for CO2 embodied in trade (e.g. goods imported from China), emission reductions in OECD countries were down 11% since 2005. In a recent analysis we found that 32 countries have now absolutely decoupled their emissions from economic growth. thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/… 9/
Even China – which drove much of the global growth in emissions in the 2000s – is quickly on its way to absolute decoupling. Per-capita emissions have already absolutely decoupled and are flat, while total emissions are on track to peak around 2025. 10/
Most future emissions in the 21st century will come from poor to middle income countries trying to reach the same living standards that we take for granted. We need to both accelerate the reduction of rich country emissions... 11/
... and make clean energy cheap so that poorer countries can leapfrog fossil-fuel driven development, and reach the level of prosperity that we take for granted without destroying the climate in the process. 12/
Now, decoupling emissions from growth is only the first and easiest step to getting to net zero emissions by the middle of the 21st century, which is what is needed to limit warming to well-below 2C in line with the Paris Agreement goals. 13/
But I argue that its quite possible to get the global to zero emissions while building human prosperity – particularly in poor to middle income countries. 14/
This is in line with what we find in the energy system models we use to show how the world might limit warming to well-below 2C (or to 1.5C) in the IPCC. Every single pathway that reaches zero emissions has the global economy between 3x and 10x larger than today by 2100. 15/
In fact, the pathway that has the easiest time meeting Paris Agreement goals – SSP1 – has the second highest level of economic growth of any of the five pathways that we use. 16/
These energy system models are just that – models – but they show that a pathway toward green growth is possible through the widespread deployment of clean energy technologies. 17/
Ultimately economic growth will stop in rich countries, due to diminishing returns and shrinking populations. However, with good policy and technology we can ensure that we can reach a prosperous, equitable, and zero-emissions future for everyone on the planet. 18/18
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Skepticism is the heart of science, but needs to be informed skepticism. We shouldn't blindly follow experts, but should acknowledge our own biases and preconceptions when encountering new evidence.
This video by @neilhalloran strikes a perfect balance:
Also the data visualization is simply gorgeous. I'm more than a little professionally jealous!
I will make one criticism: the warming scenario he labels "current course that assumes we make no new efforts to reduce emissions" is not, in fact that. It was designed as the 90th percentile of possible outcomes in a world with no new policies after 2005. nature.com/articles/d4158…
Much of the confusion around committed warming comes from a conflation of two different scenarios: one where atmospheric CO2 is held at constant levels (say, ~414 ppm today), and one where all our emissions go to zero. 2/
Until the mid-2000s, many climate models were unable to test the impact of emissions reaching zero. This is because they did not include biogeochemical cycles – such as the carbon cycle – and could not effectively translate emissions of CO2 into atmospheric CO2 concentrations. 3/
Last week the folks at @SwissRe released a report suggesting global losses of up to 14% of global GDP by 2050 due to warming expected in a current policy world.
First, credit where credit is due. The report focused on the RCP4.5 scenario in line with current policy projections from folks like @climateactiontr rather than the increasingly implausible RCP8.5 pathway: 2/
However, they then suggest that 2050 temperature outcomes under RCP4.5 would likely be 2C (50th percentile) to 2.6C (95th percentile) based on climate models used in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report. Its here that the problem arises. 3/
The US has committed to an ambitious goal of reducing emissions by 50% to 52% in 2030 relative to 2005 levels. In a new analysis, we look at what we are on track for today, and the additional reductions that would be needed to meet the new goal: thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/… 1/16
The US has reduced its CO2 emissions by about 20% since 2005. However, nearly all those reductions have been concentrated in the power sector. If current trends continue, we expect US CO2 emissions to be around 30% lower than 2005 levels in 2030: 2/
In this current-trends-continue scenario, electric power sector emissions will fall 60% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. Residential emissions will fall 18%, transportation emissions 15%, industrial emissions 5%, and commercial emissions will increase by 14%. 3/
In a new analysis, we find there are now 32 countries that have absolutely decoupled economic growth from CO2 since 2005. In these places both territorial emissions and consumption emissions (which include CO2 imported in goods) are falling. thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…
A thread: 1/21
Absolute decoupling has long been controversial, with some arguing that economic growth is fundamentally incompatible with emissions reductions. However, around 15 years ago things began to change. 2/
Rather than a 21st century dominated by coal that energy modelers foresaw, global coal use peaked in 2013 and is now in structural decline. We have succeeded in making clean energy cheap, with solar power and battery storage costs falling 10-fold since 2009. 3/
There are reasonable criticisms of too much reliance on assumed future carbon removal, and real barriers to scaling. At best it can offset a long tail of hard to decarbonize emissions and recover from overshoot.
But ruling out large-scale NETs makes 1.5C almost impossible. 1/6
The math of the 1.5C target is brutal, since we are already at between 1.2C and 1.4C today. Either all global emissions need to go to zero in the next 10-20 years, or you need to use large-scale net-negative emissions – as nearly all emissions scenarios used by the IPCC do: 2/6
Natural climate solutions can certainly get us some of the way there. But there are limits to how far they can scale, and real questions about permanence of biological carbon stores in a warming (and fire-prone) world. 3/6 carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-n…