This is a jaw-dropping report from the IEA; partly because of their conclusion, but also because of who they are. Time for an overdue #energytwitter nerd thread on transitions: nytimes.com/2021/05/18/cli…
1/ First, if you read this and think "making the kind of transitions that IEA recommends would be massively disruptive", you're right.
2/ Rapidly phasing out gasoline vehicles has huge impacts on manufacturing & maintenance chains. Blocking new oil & gas leases impacts everyone mid-career and earlier in that sector. Debt and equity holders would see massive write-offs of capital that hasn't yet been amortized
3/ Geographic regions that depend on energy extraction for their economy, like Wyoming, West Virginia, Saudi Arabia and Iran would see economic dislocation and political strife.
4/ Those are legit issues, and the political consequences of that decision are lost on no one. It's why a transition needs to consider those losses. But let's be very clear: the dislocations already occurring because of our inaction are even worse.
5/ We are already seeing waves of climate refugees around the world who are disrupting domestic and foreign politics. Take, for example, our southern border. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/… 
6/ Or the desertification of Northern Africa that led to more frequent droughts and led Syrians who had lived and farmed that land for generations to flee, contributing to broader regional destabilization. theconversation.com/climate-not-co…
7/ Now consider SwissRe's recent estimates that on the current course, world GDP will drop 18% by 2050 due to climate change, with the losses concentrated in some of the most populous nations on earth (China, India, Indonesia). swissre.com/media/news-rel…
8/ In a global world, there is no such thing as "too far away to matter". The surge of climate refugees at our southern border should be sufficient proof.
9/ But let us suppose for a moment that you, dear reader just don't care about anyone who isn't an American. The last time the earth was this warm, sea levels were "6 to 9 meters higher". arstechnica.com/science/2017/0…
10/ It is much easier to model how much ice will melt for a given global temp than it is to predict how quickly that melting will occur. But scientists I've spoken to generally believe that we are already looking at 1 meter by 2100, even if we stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow.
11/ Whether the remaining 5 - 8 meters comes in 100 - 500 years is within the margin of error of our analysis. But it is coming. At that level, Florida is gone. New York City. Boston. Washington DC. Savannah.
12/ This is not meant to frighten. It is the reality our species has created. And if the political pain of shifting away from fossil fuels today scares you - as it should! - what's coming if we do nothing is much, much worse.
13/ To be sure, we have an opportunity. Shifting from energy sources that require us to buy and pay for people to dig, drill, mine and transport to energy sources that the earth gives us for free will allow us to provide more people with access to energy at less cost.
14/ There is no short-term economic logic to sustain the path we are on. There is no long-term environmental logic to continue down this road either. The question only is whether we will act to provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
15/ I get that's politically hard. Losers always cry louder than winners cheer. But ask yourself only one question: will your grandchildren be proud of you?
16/ They will if we act. If we stop pretending physics is negotiable. If we stop patting ourselves on the back for those baffling half measures and make the commitment that is required in this era of consequences.
17/ If we recognize that the greatest gift we have been given as a planet that is "just right", with the amazing bounties of land and sea... and that in this moment, we sacrificed to ensure that we give them no less than our grandparents bequeathed to us. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
