Share this page!

Ben See Profile picture
Twitter logo
Mar 28 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
BREAKING: Biden reveals $800 billion plan for climate change

THREAD.. 🧵
1. The US plan is still to wreck our stable climate by giving $800 billion to the military every year to maintain the fossil fuel economy and intensify global warming.

We have 8 years left to slash emissions.

We need political and economic system change.
finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-202…
2. Economic growth will take us to horrific 1.8- 2.4°C of average global temperature rise by 2050 (or 2090 if we're 'lucky').

The IPCC is now talking about degrowth - which would improve most people's lives - as one of our only remaining options.

Thread:
3.
4. James Hansen's concerns about aerosols - he calls it the Devil's Bargain - haven't been addressed. Now we're just a few decades away from 2°C.

IPCC scientists say methane must be reduced as well as CO2 but emissions are rising to record levels.

Thread:

• • •

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

Keep Current with Ben See

Ben See 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 @ClimateBen

Ben See Profile picture
Mar 29
In 30 years time, Earth will suffer somewhere between 1.7°C and 3°C of global warming with utterly fragmented tropical rainforests *if* economic growth continues. Many or most people & species simply would not cope. Scientists now say degrowth MUST be considered for survival. 🧵
Degrowth means living well in harmony with the natural world. Millionaires & billionaires would have to give up wealth for the benefit of everyone else & all species. Growth can't curb deforestation and threatens fast mass extinction.

1.7- 3°C by 2048/52:
2. Five years ago, 20,000 scientists signed a paper stating that to avoid 'vast human misery' economic growth would have to be re-thought.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has now indicated that 'degrowth' is one of our only remaining options:
Read 8 tweets
Ben See Profile picture
Mar 28
Economic growth will take us to unthinkable suffering, mass death and extinction of species at 2°C of global warming in the 2040s (give or take a decade) if we don't achieve system change now to stop emissions & deforestation whilst dealing with the weird nightmare of aerosols.🧵
1. The IPCC is finally looking at degrowth in it's latest climate report.

You need extraordinary assumptions to imagine economic growth won't take us to 2°C by the 2030s, 2040s, or 2050s.

The plan? Exceed 1.5C-2C then come back down again. Folly.

Thread:
2. Economic growth won't protect species and everyone or limit the damage.

We have to try for a postgrowth world immediately.

Thread:

Read 5 tweets
Ben See Profile picture
Mar 27
In 40 years time, Earth will suffer somewhere between 1.75°C and 4°C of global warming with utterly fragmented tropical rainforests *if* economic growth continues. Many or most people & species simply would not cope. Scientists now say degrowth MUST be considered for survival. 🧵
1. Degrowth means living well in harmony with the natural world. Millionaires & billionaires would have to give up wealth for the benefit of everyone else & all species. Growth can't curb deforestation and threatens fast mass extinction.

2- 4°C by 2062/64:
2. Five years ago, 20,000 scientists signed a paper stating that to avoid 'vast human misery' economic growth would have to be re-thought.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has niw indicated that 'degrowth' is one of our only remaining options:
Read 8 tweets
Ben See Profile picture
Mar 27
1. Communicate the reality of the threat of economic growth; rethink energy use, consumption, and everything; and organise for political system change to protect species and everyone.

See thread:

2. The IPCC is beginning to talk about degrowth. Ecomodernism cannot keep us below 1.8C this century or stop habitat destruction - a postgrowth world is the only way forward to limit the damage and slow down mass extinction.

3. Economic growth is already leading to the collapse of Earth's major ecosystems due to rapid land-clearing, logging, deforestation, pollution, etc, etc.

The recent IPCC reports tell us economic growth will likely lead to 2.1C-4C hell by 2070.

Thread:
Read 4 tweets
Ben See Profile picture
Mar 26
Climate scientists expect environmental ruin at 2°C by between 2037 and 2046 or soon after assuming economic growth continues, and have begun to consider degrowth action in the latest IPCC report. 🧵
1. 'This is historical. For the first time since its original report in 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has talked about degrowth.' ~ @timparrique
timotheeparrique.com/degrowth-in-th…
2. 'After a brief discussion on what transformation means, the section presents “two contrasting schools of thought, called ecomodernism and degrowth[i].” Ecomodernism, it is written, “aims to decouple greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental pressures from GDP '..
Read 9 tweets
Ben See Profile picture
Mar 26
Last year I was surprised the IPCC decided climate sensitivity of 4.1-4.5°C is no longer considered likely. The likely range is now 2.5-4°C. I'd understood key recent papers showed this range was likely, not to mention Dr James Hansen's scepticism of models & suggestion of 6°C.🧵
1. A key IPCC paper:

If CO₂ hits 560 ppm & stays there 'there is up to an 18% chance that temperatures will rise to 4.5°C above pre-industrial levels'.

'this “likely range” has narrowed to, at most, 2.3°C to 4.5°C – or possibly an even narrower range*.'theconversation.com/just-how-sensi…
2. Sherwood et al. (2020): 'used multiple lines of evidence' to argue that ECS above 4.5C is unlikely.
frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…

A climate scientist did offer me an explanation of the narrowed 2.5-4C range but I rather struggled with the rationale.
Read 14 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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 @ClimateBen has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @ClimateBen!

Read all threads by @ClimateBen

:(