It’s critical to decarbonize the electricity sector ASAP because marginal demand increase is often supplied by fossil fuels. One recent study found that increased marginal electricity emissions would offset >half the reductions from deploying EVs [2/5] pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…
That's because "underlying these trends is primarily a shift toward greater reliance on coal to satisfy marginal electricity use." So we need to phase out coal quickly, which a #carbonprice would accomplish, or other targeted policies like clean electricity standards [3/5]
But decarbonizing electricity – which carbon pricing would accelerate – is a super important part of an #electrifyeverything agenda so that we realize all the gains of powering technologies with clean electricity and don't lose a big chunk to increased coal burning [4/5]
Then as you get clean electricity, obviously the more fossil fuel applications you can replace with electric ones, the better: EVs, heat pumps, induction stoves, some industrial applications, etc. #Electrifyeverything can do a lot, as my post details [5/5] citizensclimatelobby.org/blog/policy/ho…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Carbon dioxide removal has been a hot topic of late, with the @IPCC_CH discussing its critical importance & @stripe coordinating the ~$1B Frontier Fund to purchase CDR from startups. I wrote about CDR for @CC_Yale today. Article & thread 🧵follow [1/12] yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/05/what-y…
Unfortunately, we're not going to meet the Paris targets without CDR. Existing + planned fossil fuel infrastructure alone is enough to blow the 1.5°C carbon budget and eat nearly all of the 2°C budget. The @IPCC_CH noted that CDR serves 3 purposes over different timeframes [2/12]
1) In the short-term, CDR reduces net annual global GHG emissions.
2) In the medium-term it can offset hard-to-abate emissions to help achieve net zero targets.
3) In the long-term it can gradually draw down atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures. [3/12]
The @BudgetHawks is a non-partisan group led by political and business notables from both sides of the aisle, including budget chiefs and political advisors to Ronald Reagan and both presidents Bush. So they have street cred with many traditional conservatives [2/5]
Using @EnergyInnovLLC modeling, consistent with other analyses they find that Build Back Better climate provisions or a carbon price would be similarly effective in cutting emissions, and with both we could approximately meet our America's Paris commitments [3/5]
Global warming increases rainfall on average because a hotter atmosphere holds more water vapor. Previous climate-economic assessments had concluded that this increase in wetness would benefit the economy, in particular because more rain is beneficial in dry areas.
The first study considers a hypothetical carbon price starting at $30/ton in 2015, rising about 5% or ~$2 per year, with 100% of the revenue returned equally to individual taxpayers. Not dissimilar from the Energy Innovation & Carbon Dividend Act (2/11): congress.gov/bill/117th-con…
The authors used their Nested Inequalities Climate Economy (NICE) model – modified from Nordhaus' famous DICE climate-econ model, but adding regional economic distribution data – to evaluate the impact on households in each income bracket from poorest to wealthiest 20% (3/11)
My retrospective on the climate year of 2021 and look forward to 2022 in @CC_Yale today. Lots of important events are happening in the worlds of climate science and policy! Article and quick thread 🧵below: yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/12/2021-w…
2021 was the sixth- or seventh-hottest year on record, hotter than any year on record prior to 2015, and the hottest La Niña year ever recorded. It was consistent with the human-caused global warming trend of about 0.2°C per decade:
The world was battered by extreme weather disasters, including rain deluges and floods on nearly every continent, deadly heat like in the Pacific Northwest, harmful droughts, terrible wildfires, and a "bonkers" hurricane season.
The @WSJopinion page loves to publish junk from Bjorn Lomborg downplaying the risks posed by the climate crisis. Today he argues that potentially catastrophic 3.5°C global warming is 'economically optimal' based on Nordhaus' research. A thread 🧵 discussing the many errors here:
1) It's based on one paper (a.k.a. "single study syndrome", a.k.a. "cherrypicking"). Lomborg tries to bolster his case by noting the paper is by Nordhaus who won a Nobel Prize. But Nordhaus has said high-warming scenarios are uncertain and dangerous. theguardian.com/environment/cl…
2) The referenced paper was published in 2016, meaning it's 5 years out of date. The field of climate-economics has advanced dramatically during that time, yet Lomborg totally ignores the past 5 years of research. That's called cherrypicking.