i) First world governments, academia and NGOs share similar biases. Few alternate sources of funding if you don't match their requirements. Try publishing a paper, from the South, that the 1.5 degree target was misconceived and never was feasible.
If you are a First World author you can publish such a paper and even get acknowledged. ii) Plain refusal to cite and refer to Third World papers. No effort to check the literature for such papers even on subjects like equity, climate justice, etc.
iii) Unfortunately, Third World origin gatekeepers in the First World and Third World institutions collaborate in this. Warn dissenting Third World academics of ridicule and being out of mainstream. Have been threatened personally in this way on my criticism of "net zero."
iv) Currently I have little hope of reform. Network of scientists allied closely to First World governments are integrally tied to all moves in climate politics.
v) The irony of it all. The maximum number of top papers from the country that has the most damning policies on climate -- the United States!!
vi) Third World governments also have to share the blame. Open door to all visiting ideologues of climate in "bilateral" exchanges. Our own scientists will not get even a foot in through the door. Outsourcing our thinking to influence peddling posing as collaborative research.
From the Pledge: "Methane ... according to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, *accounts for about half of the 1.0 degree Celsius net rise in global average temperature* since the pre-industrial era."
Here is a graphic from the IPCC AR6 Working Group I Summary for Policymakers (SPM). This is Fig. SPM.2 (c). You can see here that methane contributed 0.5 deg C warming. True. But can you say that methane accounts for half of the 1 deg C net rise?
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.
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?
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