US and EU are the only two nation/groups with asset holdings above the global per capita average -- the richest. You have already consumed the bulk of the global carbon budget for 1.5 degree warming -- 61 per cent of the 4/5 ths that has already heated the planet.
You ask for "keeping 1.5 alive" but your NDCs are not even 2 deg compatible. If it is Article6 that is the concern, what are you going to get out of the bulk of the rest of the world, that is going to get by on a pittance of all resources, carbon or otherwise?
The money is not with most countries. You need only a short meeting of the rich countries to beef up climate finance. Show the world the money -- and I am sure agreement on modalities will follow.
Climate has not taken time off. But it is the rich who have, all these years, and your urgency is felt only when the rest are reeling under the pandemic. For a world beset my vaccine inequalities, offering to vaccinate the delegates seems like a bad joke.
Let us have a "physical" COP when it is possible. Climate action need not wait!!
This guidance asks MDBs to stop ALL, repeat ALL, project assistance to any project involving coal, oil and gas!! Only gas as backup for stand-alone renewable projects will be supported. How does this square with principles of equity and CBDR-RC?
These restrictions are way beyond anything that developed countries are even thinking of doing in short-term. US has no dates for coal, oil or gas phase out. In 2018, US consumed a record 82.1 million cu ft per day of gas.
Outrageous -- Former Australian High Commissioner preaching to India on net zero!! Australia itself has no plans to declare net zero, no declared date of coal phase out, no date of oil and gas phase out. @KanitkarT@JMauskar@Amit_Narang@bforboseman@3rdworldnetwork@TheBTI
Climate Action Tracker rates Aussie NDC as "insufficient", compatible only with upto 3 deg C warming. India's NDCs are below 2 deg warming compatible.
Australia is going to use Kyoto Protocol surplus credits for its NDC, meaning that the NDCs are even worth less than they seem on paper. Something others are not doing.
@KanitkarT@vnamas@3rdworldnetwork@JMauskar DECODING THE BS ON CARBON NEUTRALITY :
Paris Agreement (PA) calls for global emissions and removals of GHGs to be balanced by mid-century. Does NOT ask for individual countries to do so.
Only equitable basis to this goal -- Developed countries reach zero emissions or at least carbon neutrality even EARLIER than mid-century. Developing countries can have time, individually depending on their national circumstances, until later, even much later than mid-century.
Developed countries declaring carbon neutrality by 2050 means they will continue to maximise their appropriation of the global carbon budget as much as possible. Before the faint-hearted swoon at mention of the B word, this simply means emitting as long and as much as they can
@ThomasASpencer@tkanitkar@vnamas@nit_set@JMauskar@3rdworldnetwork Useful thread. Some points: I entirely agree with the assessment of the relative economic strengths of India and China. And that India can't be "de-carbonizing" when it has not even carbonized really. 1/n
Thats a good point to make in these hubris ridden times in India. As I have always maintained, India's entrepreneurial and cultivator classes are so backward in productivity that they cannot even "pollute efficiently". 2/n
I only wish you could also convince Indian environmentalists of this -- who celebrate India's productivity crisis as some kind of proto-sustainability, or who, in some "left" hubris, think India can outdo China in climate action. 3/n
@ThomasASpencer@KanitkarT 1/ @ThomasASpencer. Zeroth order remark -- results drawn from a collaboration with a Master's student (TJ's) in her excellent dissertation . Wont name her in this debate without her personal intervention. First, 2017 in the article is an error. Our data is upto 2016.
2/ However, you agree that our conclusion broadly is correct, that patenting has declined (clearly quite sharply) across the CCMTs. Our statement about all developed countries and sub-sectors is based on the use of both OECD STAT and PATSTAT Online.
3/ We have used priority dates and inventor country of residence while extracting the number of patents filed and hence we have country wise data.
We make clear our patenting remarks refer to technology in climate change mitigation technologies (CCMT), category identified by EPO. Based on PATSTAT online and OECD Stat for analysis. @ThomasASpencer talks about all patenting in all OECD. IRRELEVANT!
Just plotting the movement of prices does not show tech change is under way. Diffusion yes, but real innovation? We have to explain both the fall in prices and the fall in patenting. The first does not negate the other. What about RE subsidies and a regulatory helping hand?