IPCC #AR6 WGI report on the physical science basis of climate change is out today.
Find the the Summary for Policymakers and the Full Report here ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
[1/n]
Here's a short thread on Carbon Dioxide Removal, and how the #IPCC #AR6 WGI assessment (led by @KirstenZickfeld) relates to the WGIII report (due in March 2022)
ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
[2/n]
First, some important context on remaining carbon budgets, pathways and net-zero emissions - since it doesn't make any sense to talk about Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) in isolation.
ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
#IPCC #AR6
[3/n]
The updated 'remaining carbon budget(s)' show slightly higher numbers, compared to the 2018 IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C (#SR15)
[best to be explained by WGI lead author @JoeriRogelj]
ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
#IPCC #AR6
[4/n]
Unlike in #SR15, updated carbon budgets aren't accompanied by new mitigation scenarios. Hence, there's no updated information on net-zero emission years yet, and no new numbers on CDR volumes.
This information will come from #IPCC WGIII in March 2022
ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
[5/n]
Also unlike #SR15, #IPCC #AR6 more clearly distinguishes between net zero CO2 (stabilizing temperature) and net zero GHG (leading to a slight temperature decline, when based on GWP100).
And to reach 'net' zero, you need Carbon Dioxide Removal...
ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
[6/n]
#IPCC #AR6 WGI focus is on 'systemic' aspects of CDR.
Different from widespread perceptions, CDR won't only be needed to reach 'net negative emissions' but already for 'net zero', by compensating for 'hard-to-abate' emissions, e.g. from agriculture
ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
[7/n]
On a 'systemic' level, it makes sense to talk about CDR 'as such', but on the implementation level, it is better to talk about CDR methods and acknowledge context dependence. This will mainly be done by WGs II & III.
#IPCC #AR6
ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
[8/n]
Having said that, WGI ch5 does a great job in assessing general characteristics of CDR methods.
Please note that the ordering follows the timescale of carbon storage. The main goal of implemeting CDR is removing carbon durably
#IPCC #AR6 ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
[9/n]
Net negative CO2 emissions (starting before net zero GHG) will lead to lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Climate system effects of removals & emissions largely symmetric, but this depends on CDR volumes & background climate scenarios
#IPCC #AR6 ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
[10/n]
Last message on CDR in SPM: even if large-scale CDR will work & global net negative emissions can be achieved (& temperature increase reversed), sea-level rise would continue.
Read: better don't emit CO2 in the first place than try to remove later
ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
[11/n]
For more detailed assessments on CDR, have a look at WGI ch5 ("Global Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks"), section 5.6.
And don't forget to also check ch4 , esp. 4.6.3.2 ("Climate Response to Mitigation by CDR")
#IPCC #AR6 ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
[12/n]
And here's now the promised explainer on the #IPCC #AR6 'remaining carbon budget' update, by lead author @JoeriRogelj
[4a/n]
And here's already the 'bonus package' for the real IPCC nerds - the @IISD_ENB analysis of the #IPCC #AR6 WGI SPM approval session
enb.iisd.org/climate/IPCC/I…
[13/n]
The @IISD_ENB report delivers some valuable insights into negotiations on the #IPCC #AR6 WGI Summary for Policymakers, e.g. on how the SPM (not the report itself!) should refer to Carbon Dioxide Removal.
enb.iisd.org/climate/IPCC/I…
[14/n]

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Oliver Geden

Oliver Geden Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Oliver_Geden

14 Jul
Finally, here's @EU_Commission's #Fitfor55 package, to adjust EU #climate policy legislation to move from original 40% reduction target to 55% by 2030 (vs 1990)
Remember: these are only proposals, decision eventually to be made by @EUCouncil & @Europarl_EN ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/… Image
detailed #Fitfor55 proposals to be found at bottom of the page ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/…
The new Effort Sharing table
Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Finland move to -50% (2030 vs 2005)
#Fitfor55
ec.europa.eu/info/sites/def… Image
Read 5 tweets
15 Jun
The inconvenient truth about the #renewables boom in a world of growing energy consumption. Share of fossil fuels basically unchanged 2009-2019.
From @REN21's new 'Renewables 2021 Global Status Report'
ren21.net/reports/global…
The 11.2% #renewables share excludes so-called 'traditional biomass' (e.g., wood for cookstoves). Even then, share of #bioenergy among renewables still considerable
From @REN21's new 'Renewables 2021 Global Status Report'
ren21.net/reports/global…
You might have heard #renewables overtook fossil fuels in new infrastructure but this usually only refers to power sector & only to capacity not generation. Picture for whole energy system rather bleak
From @REN21's new Renewables 2021 Global Status Report
ren21.net/reports/global…
Read 6 tweets
27 Jan
A crucial aspect still unclear in Biden administration's #climate policy plan. Does "net-zero economy by 2050" cover all greenhouse gases (like in EU) or only CO2 (like US 2035 target for power sector)?
Net-zero GHG is much more ambitious than net-zero CO2
whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
Net zero GHG is much harder to achieve than net zero CO2. In global scenarios, it takes 10-20 years longer
swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2020R…
Main reason is that non-CO2 emissions like nitrous oxide (N20) and methane (CH4) are much harder or impossible to eliminate, so they need to be counterbalanced by CO2 removal, which takes longer.
Below global pathways. For countries, it depends on their specific emissions profile
Read 6 tweets
22 Oct 20
Major step forward for German #climate debate today, with study from @Prognos_AG, @oekoinstitut & @Wupperinst, The first report on net zero GHGs based on sound modelling
A quick look at Carbon Dioxide Removal
agora-energiewende.de/en/press/news-…
@AgoraEW, @agoraverkehr @StiftungKlima
[1/n]
Study assumes 95% conventional mitigation, making it one of the more ambitious for industrialized countries (CCC for UK & COM for EU: ~90%, see swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2020R…)
Residual emissions mainly from agriculture & industry, aviation already at zero
agora-energiewende.de/en/press/news-…
[2/n]
Carbon Dioxide Removal is slightly higher than residual emissions (64 vs, 62 Mt), mainly consisting of Bioenergy with CCS (mostly in industry, not in power sector) and Direct Air Capture with CO2 storage
Scenario does not rely on LULUCF sink
agora-energiewende.de/en/press/news-…
[3/n]
Read 7 tweets
5 Oct 20
Good that Fridays for Future activists start dealing more and more with the nitty-gritty details of EU #climate policymaking. But with several factual errors and questionable claims in this article, they are risking their credibility.
A short thread [1/n] #EUClimateLaw
You can of course criticize EU #climate policy for not being ambitious enough, but claiming that "the EU is cheating with numbers" needs to be backed up with very strong arguments.
medium.com/@GretaThunberg…
[2/n] #EUClimateLaw
Let's start with FFF authors' core argument that EU is cheating because the 55% are counted from 1990 onwards not from 2018
The EU has never claimed otherwise. 1990 has always been the base year for EU headline #climate targets (as for many others in #UNFCCC)
[3/n] #EUClimateLaw
Read 7 tweets
23 Sep 20
Certainly a major step forward that China now aims to achieve 'carbon neutrality' by 2060, but it can't be directly compared to EU's and UK's targets for 'climate neutrality' by 2050.
Net zero GHG harder to achieve than net zero CO2, takes 10-20 yrs more
bbc.com/news/science-e…
The main reason is that non-CO2 emissions like nitrous oxide (N20) and methane (CH4) are much harder or impossible to mitigate, so they'll need to be offset by CO2 removal, which takes longer. Below global pathways. For countries, it depends on their specific emissions profile
Confusion around net-zero CO2 & net-zero GHG is widespread (see thread below)
Rule of thumb: whenever you hear 'net zero', ask "CO2 or GHG"? If only CO2, then add 10-20 years if you compare to EU or UK
Usually, national climate targets are in GHG, not CO2

Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(