A detailed look at the report shows that @IEA has done a thorough job.
Modelling choices underpinning the pathway are well argued, reliance on speculative technologies is limited, and the carbon budget is in line with the most ambitious pathways available in the literature (2/n)
In addition, the report also presents a unique collaboration between two of the core flagship teams of @IEA: The World Energy Outlook and the Energy Technology Perspectives.
Of course #NetZero2050Roadmap will be criticized, but this time this criticism is exactly what is required, expected, and, in some way, intended.
Let me explain what I mean by this. (4/n)
We don't know the future, and therefore any report that presents a scenario needs to make a long list of assumptions - these represent tough, yet informed modelling choices.
@IEA#NetZero2050Roadmap limits the use of bio-energy to levels that others, including @IPCC_CH, have indicated can be supplied sustainably. (6/n)
It also includes demand-side and behavioural change measures, which address criticisms of being too supply-side focussed and relying too largely on carbon-capture and storage (CCS). (7/n)
If all is so well-thought-out, what will be criticised?
With @IEA providing a detailed #NetZero2050Roadmap, the important societal discussion about how to achieve it can start. (8/n)
Any scenario is ultimately fiction, and needs to be continuously discussed to serve as a guide for real-world action.
We can now start discussing if and how the bioenergy, CCS, nuclear, behavioral change, and other measures in the @IEA#NetZero2050Roadmap will be delivered. (9/n)
We, including @IEA, can now start critically assessing their assumptions on bioenergy, CCS, or other technologies and ensure they reflect our best understanding of what is technologically feasible & societally desirable. (10/n)
The @Science_Academy's analysis starts from carbon budgets reported in @IPCC_CH's 1.5°C Special Report's Table 2.2 (orig. below).
Then makes adjustments & updates.
Having had the pleasure to compile Table 2.2 for #SR15, let's compare and try to make sense of the numbers
(2/n)
The @Science_Academy's table starts from IPCC's 1.5C carbon budget for a 50% chance.
(Note1: the table quotes either a wrong likelihood or a wrong number, but that's a detail)
(Note2: IPCC Table 2.2 is in GtCO2, the table below in GtC. Multiply by 3.6 to convert to GtCO2)
#NetZero targets are key benchmarks towards a world where we avoid the worst of climate change. But if defined vaguely, they leave a lot of wiggle room and can compromise achievement of the #ParisAgreement
Global warming is proportional to the total cumulative amount of CO2 we emit. Halting global warming thus means we have to stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Rigorous net-zero CO2 targets achieve at least that, but also more...
"Net-zero emissions targets are vague: three ways to fix"
In a new @Nature piece we explain how countries & companies can set rigorous, fair and transparent net-zero targets.
Countries and companies around the world are declaring net-zero targets - all in their own way, often in vague terms, and mostly without considering what it means for others or where it leads to. (2/n)
The inadequacy of these individual targets lulls the world into missing the global climate goals of the @UNFCCC Paris Agreement. (3/n)
#COVID19 recovery stimulus dwarfs green energy investment needs for a 1.5°C-compatible world
A thread on our new scientific analysis published in @ScienceMagazine
In the wake of the economic crisis caused by the #COVID19 pandemic, governments have pledged unprecedented amounts of economic recovery and stimulus.
We tally up all pledges and compare them to what we would need to transform the global energy system to #netzero by 2050 (2/n)
We show that the 12.2 trillion USD in pledged #COVID19 recovery is roughly double the amount of all low-carbon energy investments required globally over the next five years to put the world on track for a 1.5°C pathway. (3/n)
THREAD: In a new study in @nature we present a way to avoid the bias that burdens future generations and the risky strategies that current #climate change mitigation pathways suffer from.
Existing #ClimateChange scenarios focus on reaching a target in 2100
but by doing so weirdly suggest that the best way to achieve a #climate target is to delay action first, miss it over the next decades, and then to try to make up for it later
(2/n)
This puts put a disproportionate burden on future generations, who:
-will suffer higher #climate impacts in their lives
-are burdened with later cleaning up the mess by actively pulling #CO2 out of the air