Thread by @Berekade

The replies in this thread, containing some of the world's leading energy modellers (all of whom seem to be white men, afaik) are interesting, for a few reasons: 🧵

https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1496205131511214082

#trustscience ? Is <- a useful phrase when top scientists from Princeton, Stanford, etc. can disagree vigorously about energy transition possibilities. How is one to develop an 'informed' opinion about energy transition necessities and possibilities when views are so divergent?

#trustscience ? Some energy modelers make optimistic assumptions about CCS and NETs, others about renewables and batteries, others about nuclear, others about fossil-hydrogen. How to determine which assumptions are reasonable?

Another obvious complication here that any first year #scienceandtechnologystudies student could tell you, or any mental health professional: the roles of emotion, ego, prestige, authority, privilege, and prestige in 'establishing' scientific consensus

an ambiguity about the #trustscience and #trustscientists mantras: the distinction between established science and cutting edge science.

In this particular case of transitioning the global energy system, there are literally trillions upon trillions of investment dollars on the line, and potentially entire ecosystems or communities. TBC! not suggesting any foul play here, just noting there are, in fact, stakes.

Regardless of foul play, privilege is certainly at play, when one considers the inequity of energy-*option* access. Not every country is going to have access to nuclear energy, geo-politically or economically, for example, nor is there equal energy access within rich countries.

In this 🧵about energy modelling possibilities, the experts seem to be white guys at Universities in the Global "West" (i.e. Western Europe, US/CN, in other convos OZ, NZ, Japan). When talking about assumptions, what sorts of assumptions are being made by such Western modellers?

I'm not trying to question the expertise of the scientists herein. Rather, illustrate that trusting science is complicated, moreso when there are competing hypotheses about a socially necessary transition. I have no idea who is right here, and that makes energy comms harder