My recent thread lauding the new electric F150 truck for getting better performance at a comparable cost engendered a lot of pushback and criticism of America's "autocentrism" and "fetish for big cars". These are real issues, but not a reason to criticize the new F150 per se. 1/x
It is clearly the case that America needs to invest a lot more in modernized public transportation infrastructure, and help reduce the need for car ownership in many areas. The Biden administration infrastructure bill takes a number of important steps to address this. 2/
At the same time, people who are buying $40k+ pickup trucks today (one out of every 16 light vehicles sold in the US! ) are not doing so because they lack other transport alternatives. There are plenty of much more fuel efficient lower cost options to get from point A to B. 3/
I'm very skeptical that having better public transit options would notably reduce the number of pickup trucks sold, at least in the near-term, especially as those who buy them tend to live outside of urban areas where most near-term public transport projects will be focused. 4/
So where does that leave us? We could pass laws to ban or put high taxes on large vehicles because of their environmental impacts and safety impacts on other smaller cars. But I see that as a political non-starter in the US today. 5/
People are going to keep buying pickup trucks, and a lot of them, over the next few years. Having a low-carbon electric alternative will substantially reduce emissions today, while we work on the longer term project of changing American norms around cars. 6/
Do we really think that we would move away from pickup trucks or large SUVs faster in a world where electric models are not produced? The segment of the population who buys these today is, broadly, not the one most concerned about climate and willing to change behavior. 7/
If we have any hope of meeting our ambitious global climate targets we need emission reductions today. As much as I sympathize for the need to structurally reform America's car culture, I don't think we have the luxury of time to wait for that to play out. In short: 8/
Electric trucks will be far lower emissions than their non-electric variants, even taking battery manufacturing into account. And these emissions will fall rapidly over their life as our power sector continues to rapidly decarbonize 9/9 carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2021 is off to a cooler start, with the seventh warmest Jan-April period since records began in the mid-1800s.
That said, it is still warmer than 164 of the 171 years on record, showing just how much human activity has changed what seems normal. carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-c…
Based on the first four months temperatures and the El Nino/La Nina forecast, @CarbonBrief estimates that annual 2021 temperatures also gave the best chance of ending up as the 7th warmest year on record – and its very likely to be somewhere between the fourth and ninth warmest.
We do not expect every year to set a new record in a warming world, as a lot of year-to-year variability is influenced by El Nino and La Nina cycles. The moderate La Nina event in late 2020 and early 2021 is contributing to cooler temperatures, though its is quickly fading:
Where to start? No, the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was not "as large as what we observe today", at least in 4 out of 5 available reconstructions: carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-…
Yes, the the number of significant tornadoes hasn’t changed much at all, but scientists never claimed that they would (and our models generally can't resolve small-scale events like tornadoes): carbonbrief.org/tornadoes-and-…
I missed quite the climate twitter drama, being offline over the weekend.
I'll just say that while I disagree that ~ half of emissions reductions need to come from tech that we don’t yet have, theres a case to be made that > 50% needs to come from tech that is not mature today.
Debates around mitigation are often framed as a choice between mature technologies today and future innovations. In reality we need to do both; to deploy what is cost-effective today, and to invest in range of solutions needed to tackle hard-to-decarbonize parts of economy.
I suppose a lot of the debate about Kerry's statement comes down to how you interpret "technologies that we don’t yet have". It doesn't help that the Guardian changed that to "technologies that have not yet been invented"...
There is some truth to criticism of Smil's pessimism around energy transitions. The past is an important guide, but at the same time we have not previously had exogenous pressures like climate to force transitions. Where I disagree with @mbarnardca's take is on Gate's investments
Solar and wind are huge success stories today, and will be the largest drivers of decarbonization for the next few decades. But theres a growing view among energy models that 100% WWS systems – as Jacobson proposes – are much more costly than mixed ones. thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…
We should be ecumenical about future energy tech, and on any particular technology to fill in the remaining gaps. For that reason I think its great if billionaires throw lots of money at speculative technologies that might not pan out, vs say improving solar efficiency by 2%.
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/
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…