Crucial lines on updating NDCs next year are still in. Enough to let Presidency say 1.5C is still just about alive?
Totemic lines on phasing out unabated coal and inefficient subsidies remains, but with crucial additional reference to support for a 'just transition'.
Lines on nature and methane remain, and I think look stronger than before?
There's still a placeholder on climate finance...
There is going to be a new dialogue on loss and damage - name TBC. Is there enough in the text on loss and damage or is this going to be the flashpoint for the talks today given the G77 were adamant yesterday the text was too weak.
The section on common timeframes is in square brackets, suggesting agreement not yet reached.
I may be wrong on this (it has been a long week), but the section on the crucial role of non-state actors (i.e. business, civil society, indigenous groups, etc) looks like it may be a bit stronger.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Read the already hugely influential Foundations essay over the weekend and it is really impressive. But I have some thoughts on the section on energy and decarbonisation... 🧵 ukfoundations.co
Have put those thoughts in a new blog post, but the tl;dr is the idea renewables are inherently flawed and nuclear is the low cost and the logical path to clean power is highly contested, and that is putting it very mildly. businessgreen.com/blog-post/4363…
The first thing to stress is Foundations is excellent and its central thesis is spot on. We need to build a lot more, a lot faster. The planning system is unfit for purpose. It's v amusing to see so many Tory MPs praising what amounts to a damning indictment of the past 14 years.
Absolutely damning post mortem on recent Conservative governments' climate efforts from @theCCCuk. Two years wasted that have undermined UK energy security, competitiveness, and climate action. And all for zero political gain. businessgreen.com/news/4336859/m…
Also, you know when the last government tried to argue rolling back climate policies would save people money and not jeopardise climate targets? That was obviously a complete nonsense.
Arguably the most granular analysis to date of future economic impacts from climate change estimates we will knock 19% off anticipated incomes by 2050 even if we slash emissions. If we don't we'll knock 60% off incomes and enter an era of global austerity. businessgreen.com/news-analysis/…
This is against a baseline without climate impacts, so we would still be richer in 2050 than we are now. But development would be significanly slower and the authors reckon their estimates are conservative. Tipping points could make things far worse.
Anyone doubting the scale of these projected impacts needs to look at the headlines from the last few days alone on failing harvests and record rainfall, and honestly ask themselves if they are that implausible.
Fair play to the government, this is a good package of measures. More funding for energy efficiency, local authority-led schemes, a big boost for heat pumps, and new carbon border tariffs. This is what a transition away from fossil fuels looks like. businessgreen.com/news/4157529/n…
(They'll be furious when they find out who oversaw the previous collapse in insulation rates, etc)
Worth noting that the caveat to this hugely welcome package is there is still a very big hole where green finance schemes, EPC reform, and decent efficiency standards should be.
It’d be wrong to say it’s being underestimated, as I don’t doubt Number 10 fully comprehends how horrendously bad it is, but you could hardly make up a story more perfectly designed to achieve cut through than this concrete crisis.
We had a birthday party for one of the boys today, and every single parent in attendance brought it up completely unprompted, all with a combination of disbelief and fear it could be about to ruin their autumn.
And there’s just no counter narrative. It’s so obviously the result of incompetence and underinvestment. There’s no ‘woke’ culture war angle for the government and its outriders to work.
Four separate reports today all raising the alarm over worsening water insecurity, all of which beg the question 'if we can 'just adapt' to climate change, why aren't we?' BG+businessgreen.com/news-analysis/…
Why are those who argue we should 'just adapt' to climate change so intensely relaxed at our failure to do so?
So very strange that the 'we should just adapt' columns are only written after climate records get toppled or when concerns are raised over decarbonisation policies, and not when reports reveal parts of the UK literally nearly ran out of water last summer.