Germany says the earliest it can get off Russian oil and gas is 2025. The EU says 2027. This is NOT true. They could stop buying Putin's dirty fossil fuels IMMEDIATELY if they wanted to truly support the people of Ukraine. In this thread I'll show you how... #switchoffputin 1/12
(For simplicity I'll focus here on gas. Oil is more easily substitutable, as is coal.) This is based on a report I have co-authored for the new environmental NGO @letsreplanet. Press release: replanet.ngo/post/switch-of… 2/12
It is morally obscene that Europe sends billions to help finance Putin's war on the innocent people of Ukraine. Since the invasion began on 24 Feb, Europe has sent 22 billion euros to the Kremlin. That buys a lot of missiles and bombs! Keep tabs here: beyond-coal.eu/russian-fossil… 3/12
Last year Europe bought 155 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas from Russia. This is the magic number. How can this be substituted? The biggest win is to turn down thermostats - we suggest from 22C to 18C across all of Europe. Wear a jumper for Ukraine! That saves 40bcm. 4/12
The second biggest is to get new gas supplies, mostly via LNG imports. That could bring 30bcm, without driving the price too high and impoverishing developing countries. Next we can bring shuttered French reactors back online quickly: 26 bcm. 5/12
We can also switch back to coal rather than gas for electricity generation. True, it's bad for the climate, but without it Europe will be dark and freezing next winter. We suggest ONE YEAR ONLY for this one. 22bcm. 6/12
Next we can reverse the nuclear phase-out in Germany, Switzerland and Belgium, and restart recently closed reactors. This is an emergency, folks! 14bcm. And if we massively fast-track wind and solar (emergency approvals for all permits) we can get another 6 bcm. 7/12
We will have to curtail heavy industry for a year: 7bcm, and burn oil in gas power stations: 6bcm. (Both Year 1-2 only) Emergency installation of millions of heat pumps to reduce gas used in space heating is another 4bcm. Summary... 8/12
Thermostats down by 4C: 40bcm
LNG and diversification: 30bcm
French reactors: 26bcm
Gas to coal: 22bcm
Reverse nuclear phaseout: 14bcm
Industry curtailment: 7bcm
Solar & wind: 6bcm
Gas to oil: 6bcm
Heat pumps: 4bcm
TOTAL: 155bcm. That's ALL THE RUSSIAN GAS imports ended. 9/12
Doing this will require unprecedented levels of solidarity within Europe. But isn't that what the EU was set up for? The most Putin-dependent countries need the most assistance. And there will need to be fair shares to make sure the lowest income households don't suffer. 10/12
It will be tough. But Europe - Germany especially - is now facing the bitter consequences of the Faustian bargain it made long ago with authoritarianism in Russia. All those years of appeasement, the all-expenses paid trips to Moscow...and now we have an energy emergency. 11/12
Here's the full report, with sources and footnotes, and an 'open call' we hope everyone will join.
Citizens of Europe! You may not be able to send aid, or host a refugee family - but you can still #switchoffputin
With each new Russian atrocity in Ukraine, calls for NATO intervention increase. Are we sleepwalking towards nuclear war? The appetite for risk is increasing with the horror of civilian casualties. Putin is cornered and may escalate. What's the worst that can happen? Thread: 1/12
With memories of the Cold War fading, some seem to suggest that nuclear war is worth risking. That is not what the science says. Nuclear war scenarios have been thoroughly evaluated using climate models - the same ones used by the IPCC to project global warming. 2/12
The US and Russia have deployable nuclear weapons inventories of roughly 4,000 warheads each, with many thousands more held in reserve. Over the last decade, scientists have studied a scenario where roughly half the inventories are detonated, involving 4,400 nuclear blasts. 3/12
Do you remember the famous 97% study - that 97% of climate science supported the consensus on human-caused climate change? Well we have just published an update for 2012-2021 papers in the same journal, Environmental Research Letters. The figure is now... drumroll please...99.9%!
Big shoutout to my co-authors at Cornell University, Ben Houlton and Simon Perry. The Cornell Chronicle piece detailing the study is below.
Here is the full paper, which is open access (no paywall) in ERL. It explains the methodology, and also links to all the data files - how we rated the different papers, calculated the % of sceptical ones, and which they are.
New Nature paper out today nature.com/articles/s4158…
states very clearly what is needed if governments are serious about limiting global heating to 1.5C, as agreed at Paris.
Spoiler: No new fossil fuelled infrastructure, anywhere, ever. From now on.
Read thread for details...
Existing infrastructure - if operated until the end of its lifetime - commits us to 658 billion tonnes (Gt) CO2 future emissions. That's -
358 Gt from electricity (mainly power plants)
162 from industry
64 from transport, mostly on-road vehicles
But there's more: over 1,000 GW of fossil-fuelled power plants are planned, permitted or in construction. (20% in China).
That gives us another 188 Gt committed future CO2 emissions.
TOTAL: 846 Gt "if all proposed plants built and all infrastructure operated".
So BP spent $12 million persuading voters to defeat the modest carbon tax proposal in Washington State. So much for Beyond Petroleum. Numerous other Big Oil usual suspects (e.g. Koch) also in play. News report: seattletimes.com/seattle-news/p… Big oil contributors: pdc.wa.gov/browse/campaig…
Oil companies also poured in $millions to defeat climate-protecting measures in other states. reuters.com/article/us-col… Big Oil might hide behind consumer inertia but their dead weight in blocking political climate action is all too clear.
According to ThinkProgress, oil companies spent $60m in total to defeat these state-level democratic initiatives to protect the climate. thinkprogress.org/washington-col…
It is saying that those claiming to have 'converted' to GMOs based on objective truth should not be taken at face value. Instead it is taking a class-based perspective to see (us) as middle class intellectuals seeking to use science to bolster our class positions.
They do not accept that "science" is a thing - they see it as a social construct which replicates particular power relations in society. As they put it, "heteromasculinized and whitened forms of power". In other words, science is a form of power domination.
This is actually fairly standard social science critique - very post-modern, pretty much what Vandana Shiva says. Basically we (the pro-science people) are useful idiots for the big agro-chem corporations whose interests we serve either knowingly or unknowingly.
Good lord! The @guardian is printing propaganda piece by anti-science activist @careygillam (whose work is funded by anti-vaccine/organic lobby group) as if it was real news... This is the sort of crap that gives liberal media a bad name. theguardian.com/us-news/2018/a…@guardianeco
Here's where Carey Gillam gets her money - USRTK, which is mostly funded by Organic Consumers Association. OCA was the body that spread the anti-vaccine scare in the US last year among target minority communities. marklynas.org/2016/08/anti-g…
Here's details of Carey's main donor at USRTK: usrtk.org/donors/ OCA has pumped in $500,000 so far into the anti-GMO campaign, mainly aiming to target public sector scientists with bullying FoIA requests to try to silence them.