1. A thread on climate hope: There is an extremely important and hope-filled climate paper out in Nature today. It finds that, if all the countries of the world fulfilled their climate commitments, the world would most likely limit climate change to just under 2 degrees C.
2. This is the latest of more than a dozen studies over the last 3 years that have found that we've bent the curve of future warming down significantly. Here's a summary of those papers, from @hausfath and @ClimateFran
3. For context, when I started in climate around 2010, expectations were that we would see 4 - 6 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100. That would be truly apocalyptic warming, with a severe chance of kicking off major feedback loops, and dramatic disruptions to civilization.
4. We now see a line of sight to staying below 2 degrees C. Now, our aspirations have also lifted. We'd like to stay below 1.5 degrees C of warming. And we have to be clear. We are not going to stay below 1.5 degrees C through decarbonization. It's no longer plausible.
5. Even if we were to stay below 1.5 degrees C (which we're not), we would have major challenges with increased extreme weather, fires, & potential loss of almost all coral reefs.
6. So this new paper, and this wave of modeling studies, are extremely good news. Civilization will not end at 2 degrees C. There's every reason to believe that median human welfare will be much higher in 2100, at this level of warming, than it is today.
7. Even so, there is much more work to be done. First, we must actually achieve the decarbonization that matches national pledges, meaning net zero in the rich world by ~2050, and in China and India by 2060 & 2070. That will require tech, policy, and economic innovation.
8. Second, we ought to find ways to even further accelerate this timeline for decarbonization. Every 10th of a degree matters. Bending the curve further to 1.8 or 1.7 degrees matters. The sooner we get to net zero, the better.
9. Third, we need to develop tools to intervene in fragile ecosystems to make them more resilient to climate effects. If you care about, e.g., coral reefs, this is no longer optional. They need our help to survive and thrive, even at 1.5-2 degrees C.
10. Fourth, we need to develop tools to guard against tail risks. While these new studies show warming will *probably* stay below 2C, there are error bars, and there are still risks of feedback loops that cause faster warming than expected. We need tools to knock off that risk.
11. What kind of tools? We need tools to be able to intervene in the case of rapid methane release, or rapid sea ice loss in the arctic, or rapid glacier melt. More than any of those, we need to do the research to develop solar geo-engineering.
12. As I wrote above, we have missed 1.5 degrees through decarbonization alone. And while 2 C is very survivable, it comes with real losses. If we want to stay below 1.5 C, the only plausible path at this point is solar radiation management geo-engineering.
13. Solar geo-engineering could hold temperatures down a few tenths of a degree, at a cost of mere billions per year, giving us time to decarbonize without losing fragile ecosystems. All other solutions cost trillions, not billions.
14. I do not advocate deploying solar geo-engineering today. We simply don't know enough. I do advocate funding the research needed to fully understand its effects and side-effects. Today we spend maybe $10m / year on it. We should boost this R&D budget to ~$1 billion / year.
15. While I've used the past few tweets on controversial opinions, I want to come back to the very good news. Signs are that we've bent the curve of future warming from apocalyptic (4-6 degrees) to very survivable (~2 degrees). This is fantastic news.
16. The full nature paper with this newest modeling study (showing ~1.9 degrees C of warming if all nations fulfill their pledges) is here: nature.com/articles/s4158…
17. A useful explanatory thread on this recent study and the last 3 years of studies showing that we've bent the curve is here, from @hausfath
1/15 The Biden admin has done far better in supporting Ukraine than I expected. That said, what Cruz is asserting here rings true: It is not at all clear that Biden is aiming for Ukraine to actually win this war. And that is a profound mistake.
2/15 The core tests of any plan for US support of Ukraine need to be:
A) Does this give Ukraine what it needs in order to outright win the war, and destroy Putin's invading army.
B) While avoiding nuclear confrontation, now and in the future.
3/15 My perception is that President Biden, and much of the US left (of which I'm a part) are focused on avoiding near term direct confrontation of Russia because they fear the risk of it triggering nuclear conflict. This is obviously understandable.
Aleppo is one of the oldest cities in the world, with evidence of people living there since 5,000 BCE. It sounds amazing. I want to visit it. One day, when Syria is free (let's hope) I intend to. 2/
This is an incredible analysis of how Putin's invasion of the world will re-order the global world, largely for the better. By a leading Chinese policy thinker, in Shanghai, originally written in Chinese. Brief thread, but read the whole thing. uscnpm.org/2022/03/12/hu-… 1/
Hu Wei is the vice-chairman of the Public Policy Research Center of the Counselor’s Office of the State Council, the chairman of Shanghai Public Policy Research Association, the chairman of the Academic Committee of the Chahar Institute, a professor, and a doctoral supervisor. 2/
He writes that Putin's invasion of Ukraine will lead to: 1. Possibly an escalation of the war beyond Ukraine. 2. Certainly Putin's degeat. 3. The United States regaining leadership in the Western world, and the West being more united.
3/
Thread of threads on how the US and Europe can advance energy policy to weaken Putin and reduce his leverage over Europe and the US. First, here's the US policy response we could have now. (1/n)
This energy bill to weaken Putin and reduce his leverage on the US and Europe can be passed through reconciliation and be filibuster-proof, if necessary. (2/n)
Thread. Two large, sophisticated, data-driven analysis of the genetics and location of early Covid cases in Wuhan find that it's extremely likely that Covid crossed over from animals at the market. At least twice. 1/n nyti.ms/3vkjo15
"“When you look at all of the evidence together, it’s an extraordinarily clear picture that the pandemic started at the Huanan market,” said Michael Worobey, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona and a co-author of both new studies." 2/n
This probabalistic analysis of early Covid spread doesn't produce a smoking gun. But it is much more consistent with spread from animals to humans in the Wuhan market than it is with a lab leak origin. 3/n
I think there's a high risk that what Putin is doing by threatening Ukraine will backfire on him. Short thread.
1. Putin bet that NATO wouldn't come together. But Biden has done a remarkable job pulling the alliance back together. 1/5
2. Putin believes he has a gas weapon against Europe, but his threats - let alone an invasion - will only accelerate Europe finding alternatives to Russian gas.
2/5
3. If Putin backs down now (the best for everyone) he loses. He's strengthened NATO and Biden. He's probably accelerated Europe finding alternatives to Russian gas.
3/5