Taking some time to dive deeper into the CDR Primer written by a bunch of researchers and the PR firm @SpitfireSays, and I'm finding all these things that are...weird.
For instance, one chart claims that the @IPCC_CH doesn't mention CDR in SR 1.5, but in fact it does. It says👇
The chart to which I referred in my previous tweet is in Chapter 1 of the CDR Primer, which is here:
As exposed by @RBrulle@MichaelEMann@GeoffreySupran@BenFranta@NaomiOreskes and others, the cornerstone of the current fossil-fuel disinformation strategy is the rebranding of oil and gas companies as trustworthy partners in the clean-energy transition.
2/n
This rebranding has been achieved largely through false advertising & corporate sponsorship of academic programs, as well integration into scientific events & the COPs.
Since founding @EndClimtSilence in 2018, I have come to realize that the biggest problem facing climate journalism is the influence of fossil-fuel money on the executives running news outlets.
2/n
This influence emerges in many ways.
Broadcast network execs are, I believe, insinuating to their production and reporting teams that it's "political" or "biased" to cover the #ClimateCrisis precisely becuz they don't want to alienate their oil and gas advertisers.
3/n
Hello climate and media Twitter! Curious about your take on these questions👇
1/n
Given that the #ClimateCrisis is accelerating and people are already dying (from heat, flood, disease, etc), fossil fuel ads in the news media are...
2/n
When a news outlet with an excellent climate desk not only runs but writes ads for oil and gas companies, they do what to the credibility of their journalism:
3/n
Given that the world must stop the general use of fossil fuels as soon as possible in order to halt global heating, legitimate news outlets encouraging readers to consume more fossil fuels by running ads for them is:
I am deeply frustrated that the @IPCC_CH is calling for "reductions" in CO2 emissions rather than what is required: the virtual elimination of CO2 emissions in the next decades.
I mean, virtual elimination of emissions is what "reaching net-zero CO2 emissions" means!
1/2
"Reductions" is a weak word that suggests only action on the margins, like losing enough weight to tighten your belt by one hole, or something.
ACTION ON THE MARGINS IS NOT WHAT IS REQUIRED
1.5/2
What political struggle was lost to give us the mixed message that we need to both "reduce" emissions and "reach net zero emissions"?
I feel like I'm in one of those nightmares where you scream at the top of your lungs, but don't make even the smallest sound.
2/2
This week, and maybe next week, elected officials and the news media will be paying more attention to the #ClimateCrisis than they usually do.
Let's make this time count!
1/n
Use this tool to call your Senators and tell them you want them to pass transformative climate policy in order to win your vote. It's easy and very satisfying! And it will help.
Also not mentioned: the limit outlined by the @IPCC_CH in SR 1.5.
9 years (at this point) to halve emissions & less than 30 to zero them out entirely in order to have even a 2/3s chance to halt warming under 2C, if we also deploy global-scale negative emissions afterwards.
2/
If you're going to position yourself as the voice of clear-eyed realism, you really need to account for the reality of physics in your analysis.
3/