Paradoxes of #FossilFuels that contribute to #CarbonLockIn, by @JPTilsted: 1. "Everywhere, yet [made] invisible" (slow violence is overlooked); 2. "needed" [claim producers] yet inherently problematic, history of self-regulation a failure; 3. Booming, yet sector in decline
#fossilfuel producers are adding massive capacity, boosted by #plastic production, but industry projections for "transformative change" continue to dispose (yellow) + mismanage (red) plastics. @JPTilsted at @LUCSUS_LU seminar 2/n
Who produces and owns #fossilfuels? Wide range of actors including int'l + national oil firms, states, but also petrochemicals, "emerging market firms". "co-evolution of energy and engineering." Indirect ownership hard to trace + reinforces lock-in, shows @JPTilsted 3/n
Analysis of networks and ownership structure in petrochemical industry by @JPTilsted using @CDP database to analyze >38,000 subsidiaries of top 50 companies.Innovation focused on incremental improvements of existing tech, favors multi-nationals, creates barriers to new entry. 4/n
Preliminary network analysis by @JPTilsted of @CDP database shows "all major multinational petrochemical companies are connected". Plastics, petrochemical, fertilizers highly integrated, e.g., through joint ventures. Shifting $ btwn these fossil uses locks in existing regime. 5/n
Biobased + circular + degrowth economy (all 3) would be needed for sustainable #plastics, says @JPTilsted. One or two legs of the "stool" would not be sufficient. Must address both production + consumption with a systems perspective. 6/n
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Red pill" climate talk from the inimitable @KevinClimate - argues 1.5°C of warming is the upper limit of what can be considered achieving the goal of Paris: avoiding dangerous climate change. Climate just responds to brutal physics, not promises. 1/
"'1.5 is dead' is deliberately misleading, or a misunderstanding of science" says @KevinClimate. We'd take the medical treatment with a 1/6 chance; there is still an outside chance. Reductions needed are incredibly rapid, can't see making blue line (50%) but red possible. /2
Divide the carbon pie (budget) wrt equity, developed countries lead: blue = developed countries, must get to zero emissions ca. 2031. Only 18% world lives in blue; more onerous per cap on developing countries. For 2°C, C budget ca 2x that for 1.5, still small! @KevinClimate /3
Now live-tweeting the #IPCC#ClimateReport press conference, sharing results from the largest scientific effort to analyze the #ClimateAction needed for a livable future for all.
Follow here and in this THREAD:
1/
"The pace and scale of what has been done, and current plans, are insufficient to tackle climate change. We are walking when we should be sprinting. Impacts include illness and death, damage global economy, threaten our life support system." H-S Lee, #IPCC#ClimateReport /2
Effective, equitable action now can lead to more sustainable, just world; benefits for people and nature. Many feasible and effective options. Must cut global GHG emissions by almost half by 2030 "if we want a chance to stay at/below 1.5°C" H-S Lee #IPCC#ClimateReport /3
Scientists, don't separate activism and research, urges @JKSteinberger. We need ongoing critical reflection; only way to understand a system is try to change it. Activism critical to system change. 1/
Relatively little social science studies effectiveness of less powerful groups in making system change. @JKSteinberger shares lessons from THIS IS AN UPRISING on non-violent civil disobedience. Focus on disruption, decentralized, shift debate to your terms, choose moral sides /2
Traditional appeals to power (e.g., @GretaThunberg outside Parliament) risks surface responses like declaring climate emergency w/o real action; then must fight portrayal of action in media. @JKSteinberger uses her power (as a citizen & scientist), shares lessons learned. /3
The logic of "overshoot": dominant approach (scientific, corporate, gov't) is now to temporarily exceed 1.5 or 2°C warming, then bring temperatures down using carbon removal, + maybe solar geoengineering; argument is this "buys time to finally get rid of fossils." @wim_carton
Overshoot narrative relies on "rational optimism"- assumes carbon removal, solar geoengineering can be governed smoothly + responsibly. This assumption is "Rather problematic... if capitalism was rational & responsible, we wouldn't face overshoot in the 1st place!" -@wim_carton
Unpacking assumptions behind "overshoot" of climate targets: 1. Reversibility (what about tipping points, risks @ extremes? Even if temp reversible, sea level rise, permafrost, ice, species, ocean acidification,... are not)
-@wim_carton
As the climate scientist who led the independent @ResearchersDesk analysis of Sweden's political parties' climate policies, I'm infuriated to read the new government's agreement claim "politics must be in line with research and based on facts," then do the opposite. THREAD
For example, @kdriks leader @BuschEbba told @dagensnyheter@linalund “Sweden will manage the climate transformation and meet our share of the Paris Agreement.” But our @ResearchersDesk analysis found proposals by the parties now in power will NOT meet the Paris Agreement. 2/n
KD and SD placed heavy emphasis on nuclear power before the election, and nuclear is a (the?) main plank of the agreement released today. However, our analysis showed nuclear is unlikely to reduce emissions before 2030, thus wasting our chance at avoiding climate catastrophe. 3/n
Food security = available + access + utilisation + stability (@FAOKnowledge). We developed indicators of each for African countries in our study; found food insecurity across Africa decreased since 2000 (good!), but only 3 countries were relatively food secure in 2017 (bad) 2/n
Instead of providing food security, we found the best lands are allocated to flex crops; food is produced only on marginal lands. 83% of land deals are located where they risk increasing land pressure, conflicts, or deforestation. 3/n