The quote below is utter nonsense. The referenced "exhortations to combat climate change" are based on the authoritative @IPCC_CH report, and there have been plenty of climate policies proposed that are congruent with 'conservative agendas' like carbon pollution pricing (2/14)
The below sentence is totally irrelevant. The Earth both absorbs and re-radiates sunlight. It's the amount accumulating on Earth (equivalent to >5 atomic bombs per second) that changes its temperature and climate (3/14)
Please spare us the tired "climate has always been changing" red herring. The rate at which humans are currently changing the climate through the burning of fossil fuels is unprecedented at least in many thousands of years. *That's* the problem (4/14)
I don't even know what the below quote is supposed to suggest. Humans obviously weren't significantly altering the climate 500 years ago (with relatively small exceptions like deforestation) and there was no "global cooling of 1940-1980" (temps were flat during that period (5/14)
Again, human fossil fuel emissions are responsible for the *imbalance* or *change in* Earth's energy flows and hence for its climate change. This is basic stuff (6/14)
"Koonin says" is obviously not a valid scientific reference. The @IPCC_CH report concluded that hurricanes are becoming stronger (more Category 3–5) (7/14)
First of all, tornadoes are not hurricanes. Secondly, we don't know how/if climate change will alter the overall number of hurricanes. The problem is that it makes them stronger (8/14)
Sea level rise is accelerating (9/14)
I'd love to see the supposed "recent research" referenced here, because these claims are absolutely false 👇 (10/14)
Wow @ the cherrypicked weasel words in the quote below: "average warmest temperature across the United States has hardly changed." Last I checked we were talking about *global* warming (11/14)
Look up "Tragedy of the Commons" before reading the quote below (12/14)
The "plausible emissions scenarios" referenced below involve massive international efforts to decarbonize the global economy. That's exactly the point - that's what we need to do! (13/14)
Ah yes, the "we don't need to take climate action now because we'll be rich in the future and will all be able to build new homes on mountaintops" argument. That's my favorite 🙄 (14/14)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread 🧵on why I think it's a big mistake for progressives and environmental justice advocates to kill a permitting reform deal in the current lame duck session of Congress. Permitting reform is crucially important for both the climate and frontline communities [1/10]
Everyone agrees we need to speed up the rate at which we build electricity transmission. Otherwise we can't connect new wind & solar to the grid fast enough, and as @JesseJenkins' team found, we would squander 80% of the Inflation Reduction Act's potential emissions cuts [2/10]
The IRA would also increase electricity demand in 2030 by incentivizing EVs, electric heat pumps, induction stoves, etc. If we don't speed up our clean energy infrastructure build-out, @JesseJenkins' team found that demand will be met by burning more fossil fuels [3/10]
An important new study from two dozen experts published in @Nature provides a comprehensive update of the social cost of carbon, finding at $185/ton it's >3.5 times higher than the current federal estimate. My @CC_Yale and 🧵 on the details follow [1/11] yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/09/new-st…
Why it's important: federal agencies have to consider the costs & benefits of proposed regulations. For climate regs, benefits from avoided damages come from the SCC. Bigger SCC = bigger benefit/cost ratios = more aggressive climate rules from agencies like @EPA [2/11]
In other words, if you want the Biden administration to go into climate 'beast mode' with aggressive executive actions including agency climate pollutant regulations, you want the social cost of carbon to be big, reflecting the high costs of long-term climate damages [3/11]
In @CC_Yale today I've got a piece on a new Science study examining what it will take for the US to meet its 50% by 2030 Paris commitment. It's still within reach, but will take major policy accelerations. Article & thread 🧵follow [1/8]: yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/06/what-i…
With two-thirds of the time between 2005 & 2030 having passed, emissions have only fallen about 15% (~1 Gt). The study looked at 7 energy system model scenarios to see what it'll take to reduce US emissions another 35% (~2.3 Gt) below 2005 levels in just the next 8 years [2/8]
About half the cuts (~1.1 Gt) will have to come from the electricity sector – doubling the current rate of wind & solar deployment within the next 4 years or so. Current rates are double those in 2015, so it's feasible, but they've stagnated and will need a policy boost [3/8]
Carbon dioxide removal has been a hot topic of late, with the @IPCC_CH discussing its critical importance & @stripe coordinating the ~$1B Frontier Fund to purchase CDR from startups. I wrote about CDR for @CC_Yale today. Article & thread 🧵follow [1/12] yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/05/what-y…
Unfortunately, we're not going to meet the Paris targets without CDR. Existing + planned fossil fuel infrastructure alone is enough to blow the 1.5°C carbon budget and eat nearly all of the 2°C budget. The @IPCC_CH noted that CDR serves 3 purposes over different timeframes [2/12]
1) In the short-term, CDR reduces net annual global GHG emissions.
2) In the medium-term it can offset hard-to-abate emissions to help achieve net zero targets.
3) In the long-term it can gradually draw down atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures. [3/12]
It’s critical to decarbonize the electricity sector ASAP because marginal demand increase is often supplied by fossil fuels. One recent study found that increased marginal electricity emissions would offset >half the reductions from deploying EVs [2/5] pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…
That's because "underlying these trends is primarily a shift toward greater reliance on coal to satisfy marginal electricity use." So we need to phase out coal quickly, which a #carbonprice would accomplish, or other targeted policies like clean electricity standards [3/5]
The @BudgetHawks is a non-partisan group led by political and business notables from both sides of the aisle, including budget chiefs and political advisors to Ronald Reagan and both presidents Bush. So they have street cred with many traditional conservatives [2/5]
Using @EnergyInnovLLC modeling, consistent with other analyses they find that Build Back Better climate provisions or a carbon price would be similarly effective in cutting emissions, and with both we could approximately meet our America's Paris commitments [3/5]