First thing that hits your eye is this chart!! India has a greater 2030 gap than the US?? Really? And even Canada and Australia? How did they even get here?? 2/n
At COP26 empty words will count, not action. The Paris drop-out gets to the top of the class now. Remember failed pre-2020 commitments? US 5.13 Gt CO2 in 1990 > 5.28 Gt CO2 in 2019. Non-EIT Annex-I will reach 2020, 0.4% above 1990. India is supposed to clean up after them?
3/n
How are such graphs made? Turns out with a helping hand from the modelling crowd. This is the outcome of "low cost"modelled pathways. Not even the fig-leaf of equity.
4/n
Forget equity for now. Where does the quantification of India's "projected" emissions come from? 2 hours of searching and I couldn't find it. No transparency.
5/n
@WRIClimate repeats bullshit on net-zero. Haven't heard of cumulative emissions. US will emit 91 Gt of CO2 by net zero. Will take 25% of a 500 Gt remaining budget for 1.5 deg C. 25% like they have done over 1850-2018 as well.
6/n
Typical case of INGO acting as shock troops for their govts. @WRIClimate calls for "1.5 aligned NDCs by 2023", long-term strategies to be revised periodically (why give one if it is just like the NDC, being revised regularly) -- changing the goal posts yet again!!
7/n
Predictably, @WRIClimate echoes the OECD's untenable claim of USD 80 billion climate finance already mobilised. Whole lot more in there parroting what the White House and 10, Downing St are saying. Judge for yourself.
8/n
1/n कुल CO2 उत्सर्जन का महत्व
जलवायु परिवर्तन एवं वैश्विक तापमान कुल CO2 उत्सर्जन से निर्धारित होता है, नाकि वर्ष विशेष में हुए उत्सर्जन से। वैश्विक तापमान कुल CO2 उत्सर्जन के समानुपाती होता है, (प्रत्येक 1000 GtCO2 जुड़ने पर औसतन 0.45℃ तापमान की वृद्धि होती है)
2/n शून्य शेष स्थिति
जब वायुमंडल में उत्सर्जित (वर्ष विशेष) मानवजनित GHGs की सम्पूर्ण मात्रा विभिन्न मानवी प्रयासों के माध्यम से वायुमंडल से वापस निकाल ली जाती है। इस स्थिति को उत्सर्जन की शून्य शेष स्थिति कहते हैं।
Hah! Not very useful. Nothing in your thread I am not aware of. My questions to you were rhetorical ( but thanks @EmergingRoy 😄 anyway). I am aware of your report - my thread shows i know it is "lowest cost" pathways. @JMauskar@KanitkarT@3rdworldnetwork@bforboseman@n_thanki
If your really want to engage -- publish in the open domain, transparently next to your report the data for India and all the G-20. I couldn't find it. We want to know what you mean by low cost and what it means in real terms.
Second, if these low-cost pathways are not attainable without finance, why should anyone first declare it as target and then hope for money -- to be in the good books of @WRIClimate@CA_Latest@climateactiontr, the new Moody's and S&P of the climate world?
A comment with some initial promise, but quickly bogged down. Reason? Have to convince themselves, somehow, that developing countries must also get on the "net zero" bandwagon. @mauskar@KanitkarT@3rdworldnetwork@bforboseman
First part of paper acknowledges importance of carbon budget, how remaining budget for 1.5 is woefully short. Not exactly an earth-shaking finding -- but good they agree. It was pretty obvious at the time of Paris itself.
Negative emissions brought on board by scientists, to try and squeeze blood out of stone!! Otherwise there was zilch to say about 1.5 deg C as a target, except -- INFEASIBLE. So 1.5 deg scenarios have liberal, walloping doses of -ve emissions.
Step 1: First major change -- CAT adds targets to policies as the basis of assessment. Immediate greenwash available to those who declare "net zero", or new NDCs. But this is not enough to save them. More required.
2/n
Step 2: Both targets and policies now assessed not only against "fair" share, but ALSO against "low cost" pathways. So distributing the mitigation burden by where it is "cheaper", also counts. Major leg up for the Annex-I, as "cheaper" means let non-Annex-I do it!
3/n
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.
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?