This is to help people who think the 4.9 C path or "business as usual" is still possible. Quotes a tweet from @Peters_Glen from 2019. Situation is the same today in 2021 and even more so.
I refer to it as the 4.9 C path just because not many people know what RCP 8.5 means but that's technically more accurate, really a scenario of CO2 emissions with a narrative to motivate it.
The Paris Agreement is working. Carbon Action Tracker had this projection for 2100 in December 2018 just after the report on the difference between 1.5 and 2 C
This is what it's like today
Current policies fallen 0.6 C
Pledges and targets have fallen 0.4 C
And the optimistic targets are now 1 C below the current policies for 2018.
That’s a big fall given that every half degree matters.
We have well below 2 C within our sights now.
This gives an idea of countries targetting net zero. It's likely some over achieve. Meanwhile we can expect some to under achieve. But generally the over and under achievers tend to balance each other out.
Click bait headlines often say that since emissions per year aren't falling fast yet, we can never achieve this. But what this hides is that half the global emissions are already falling. This is just a rough idea, the lines sketched in by hand.
This is how it's possible, even with rising emissions per year to make predictions that require emissions to fall. China is the main one has to change direction, and they have come in with a clear statement of intent and policy to reduce emissions to zero by 2060.
China tends to under promise and over achieve. We are yet to see the details of how they are going to achieve this reduction, with major questions about it, but it is well within their capability to do so.
The UK is an example that is pretty much on a straight line to zero emissions by 2050. This goal is certainly achievable with the political will and we have detailed plans on how to achieve it. carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-is…
The huge reductions in price of renewables will make it easier and easier for countries to make ambitious pledges and targets. Those that can't or don't do it yet have the opportunity again in 2025 and 2030.
By 2025 we can expect renewables to be half the cost of the lowest cost fossil fuels in the UK. We may get their faster with new technologies like Perovskite solar panels, a low cost way to make flexible solar panels that can be installed easily anywhere.
This is what Debra Roberts said after IPCC report in 2018. The report showed how much we can do as individuals by our choices. Few journalists reported this at the time. Feel empowered, there is much we can do.
Video:
Article: debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/What-the-IPCC-…
SHORT DEBUNK: Why NATO would hardly change if Trump is elected president and ignores all the US commitment to NATO
- and Europe is already well on its way to taking over funding to Ukraine
SHORT DEBUNK: Why Supreme Court was unanimous in decision that Trump's name had to stay on the ballot - also did not say he is immune for everything
- Judge Chutkan's preliminary ruling shortly after election day expected to say an 06 trial can go ahead doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Why_the_S…
BLOG: Dare to Hope
- Climate Restoration
- Three ways to get CO2 levels back to pre-industrial 300 ppm by 2050
- potentially pay for themselves
- many more ways to remove CO2 in IPCC AR6 chapters 7 and 12
See: robertinventor.substack.com/p/dare-to-hope…
I wrote this blog post on Quora originally. Updated it and shared on my substack because so many seem completely unaware of AR6 / WG3 / Chapter 7 and Chapter 12 - even sometimes write articles on the topic of carbon sequestration that show they never so much as saw this figure.
The first part of the blog post is about several ways to get back to 300 ppm if we wanted to that even pay for themselves. The second part is a short summary of the IPCC sections on ways to remain at net zero through the second half of this century summarized in that graphic.
BLOG: Far right Republican Project 2025 is mostly an illegal fantasy - most of it can’t be done at all - “Schedule F” would face legal challenges and likely be struck down
CLICK HERE TO READ:
2/ This is impossible. I 'll do a new post when I get time. Most things require new laws and they can't get a far right majority in either house. Schedule F is the main executive decision option. If he tries again it is likely shot down as illegal. Meanwhile short thread.
3/ for LGBT things remember that the vast majority in both houses supported the respect for marriage act. So it is not possible for Congress to pass laws that remove the right for marriage for gay people never mind harsher restrictions.
1/n Yes we ARE headed for 1.7°C if countries keep to announced pledges
- most make realistic pledges and achieve or overachieve
- 77% of IPCC authors CAN be wrong if it is the remaining 23% who study how countries translate pledges into action
2/ About why climate scientists often are so pessimistic about action on climate change.
- hardly any study the economic models
- IPCC / AR6 had a cut off date just before the COP26 net zero pledges
- so couldn't evaluate the feasibility of India / China's net zero plans.
3/ The big IPBES report in 2019 was the only recent major study with a large element of social scientists and it was the most optimistic, saying we can achieve this transformative change, not just scientifically - that it is economically and socially feasible.
@GerogeBush6@mikestabile 1/ This is an inaccurate summary. It is about exceptions to the law not overturning it. There are many exceptions already itif.org/publications/2…
This case is specifically about how YouTube recommends videos to users (continues)
@GerogeBush6@mikestabile 2/n The case is about whether Google is liable if its algorithm recommends illegal content to users. It is NOT liable for hosting user generated illegal content - that's established. Video summary. c-span.org/video/?c503199…
1/4 Many people are misreading what Putin said in his annexation speech. He did NOT say Hiroshima and Nagasaki create a precedent for the world to use nukes today
- that would be a very radical
- that would reverse all Russian nuclear policy for decades.
2/4 It is very clear in context that Putin said
- the Allied carpet bombing in WW2 in Dresden, Hamburg and Cologne
- set a precedent for the use of the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They clip the video just before the second paragraph which makes that clear.
3/4 I go into it in my blog post using the official English translation of Putins' speech as published by the Kremlin.
I look at two other ways to intepret those two sentences, neither makes sense in the context of the paragraph that follows.