Share this page!

Dr. Zeke Hausfather Profile picture
Twitter logo
7 Dec, 4 tweets, 2 min read
Mining is an unavoidable part of a clean energy transition, but impacts can be minimized. All energy alternatives come at a cost: biofuels displace farmland / drive deforestation.
The question should not be "is there an impact", but "is it substantially better than fossil fuels"
For more on these challenges, see this excellent piece by my colleague @juzel_lloyd: thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…
"Mining is not a ‘clean’ business and by its very nature, there will always be some alteration to the environment. The real question is this: what are the trade-offs between the damages associated with mining for decarbonization and the damages of not reducing emissions?"
"And to what extent can negative impacts associated with the technologies we need for decarbonization be minimized? The effort must incorporate realistic standards for environmental impact as well as new policies that prove more useful for mitigating effects on local communities"

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Dr. Zeke Hausfather

Dr. Zeke Hausfather Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @hausfath

Dr. Zeke Hausfather Profile picture
7 Dec
Climate models are complex physics-based simulations run on the worlds fastest supercomputers.

But there is a quick hack to get results similar to climate models that you can calculate in Excel. Its called the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions (TCRE). 1/9
TCRE is the amount of warming as a function of cumulative CO2 emissions. It turns out that warming over time is – to a first order approximation – linearly proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions, as this figure (SPM.10) from the recent IPCC AR6 demonstrates: 2/
As the AR6 notes, "Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27C to 0.63C increase in global surface temperature with a best estimate of 0.45C."

Essentially, if you add up CO2 over time and multiply it by 0.45C, you get warming. That simple. 3/
Read 9 tweets
Dr. Zeke Hausfather Profile picture
3 Dec
This sort of language is deeply problematic. A flatting of emissions does not result global warming stopping.

Rather, if emissions are flat global warming continues at its current rate, resulting in a significant rise in global temperature of around 3C by 2100 vs preindustrial.
The only way to stop the world from warming is to get all emissions to (net) zero. The only way to meaningfully cool the planet back down during the next few centuries is to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than we add to it. Image
So while its good news that high-end scenarios where global emissions double or triple are much less likely in a world of falling clean energy prices and a global coal industry in structural decline, emissions still need to fall dramatically to avoid significant future warming.
Read 4 tweets
Dr. Zeke Hausfather Profile picture
29 Nov
The recent IPCC AR6 updated remaining carbon budgets for 1.5C and 2C scenarios.

These budgets let us make simple estimates of when emissions need to reach zero if we allow no net-negative emissions.

1.5C (66%): 2039
1.5C (50%): 2044
2C (66%): 2077
2C (50%): 2088

A thread: 1/8
These are subject to a number of assumptions (and uncertainties), of course. Allowing net-negative emissions expands remaining budgets, while more convex (or concave) emissions pathways would change the date at which zero emissions needs to be reached: 2/
Assumptions around non-CO2 GHG emissions and aerosols also matter. The IPCC provides a best estimate (and uncertainties), but more pessimistic or optimistic assumptions for non-CO2 forcings would reduce or expand the remaining carbon budgets accordingly. 3/
Read 9 tweets
Dr. Zeke Hausfather Profile picture
28 Nov
This is thankfully not true. As we reported in the recent IPCC 6th Assessment Report, scenarios that limit us to around 1.8C (with a 66% chance of avoiding 2C) require getting to net-zero emissions by around 2070, not 2030 as this tweet and article inaccurately imply.
Climate change is a big enough problem to solve that we really don't need disempowering hyperbole like this. Yes, the window to limit warming to 1.5C is rapidly closing, but at the same time below 2C is increasingly within reach.
For reference, here is the SSP1-2.6 scenario that limits warming to ~1.8C by 2100. If you were to exclude the net-negative portion of emissions you would end up closer to 2C by 2100 (or would have to get to net-zero closer to 2060). Either way its a far cry from 2030!
Read 5 tweets
Dr. Zeke Hausfather Profile picture
27 Nov
When it comes to zero emissions, both journey and destination matter.

Warming depends on cumulative emissions, and delaying emissions reductions could result in ~0.15C more warming compared to a linear decline to zero by 2050. Image
If we look at what might be a more plausible pathway given commitments by governments today – zero emissions by 2070 – a slower reduction pathway would result in ~0.25C more warming. Image
These are based on the latest median TCRE value (1.65C per 1000 GtC) from the IPCC AR6. They assume that other forcings (e.g. non-CO2 GHGs and aerosols) remain constant. In more detailed scenarios we generally end up with ~0.05C-0.1C warming in all cases due to non-CO2 forcings.
Read 5 tweets
Dr. Zeke Hausfather Profile picture
15 Nov
A good summary of views of scientists coming out of COP26. Some like @ClimateOpp are ready to declare the 1.5C dead, while others hold out a bit more hope based on enhanced long-term net-zero promises that countries have made. apnews.com/article/climat…
As I told @borenbears, where we are headed coming out of COP26 based on more solid near-term commitments is probably ~2.3C (1.8C - 2.9C) – and that is assuming all 2030 NDCs are reached. We can – and hopefully will – do better as countries ratchet up commitments in coming years. Image
There is a lot of nuance in which outcomes (current policy, near-term commitments, or long term promises) folks decide to emphasize. Here is the full remarks I sent the AP that tries to sort it all out: Image
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @hausfath has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @hausfath!

Read all threads by @hausfath

:(