Ketan Joshi Profile picture
Apr 2 6 tweets 3 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
Hey! You forgot about the #IPCC report!

Don't worry - I'm going to do another thread here, this time with highlights from the 'longer report', which is longer than the summary of the synthesis, but shorter than the as-yet unreleased full synthesis (which are all summaries)

🫡
The past is here, it's just not evenly (temporally and spatially)

Hello to North America and Europe, responsible for 39% of historical CO2 emissions

(some weird country groupings here....but that's because countries are weird concepts)
The most vulnerable countries also tend to have the lowest emissions per person

It feels old hat now but it's still an important point.
Not exactly a tick of approval for SRM. Didn't they hear about how 'punk rock' it is Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) approaches, if they were
To limit warming to 1.5 or 2C, we need to only emit a tiny fraction of what has already been emitted so far.

Existing and planned fossil fuel infrastructure tip us past that, easily.

Hence: WE CAN'T BUILD ANY NEW FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE.

#IPCC
Power really needs to come first, in the sequence of sectors that reach near-zero emissions up to 2050, for carbon dioxide emissions.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Ketan Joshi

Ketan Joshi 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 @KetanJ0

Mar 31
Every attempt to 'fix' the voluntary carbon market fails because everyone dances around the real purpose that it serves (a paid service to justify delaying emissions reductions using the fabrication of climate action)

bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
"the Integrity Council includes a requirement to disclose a credit’s end-user, whether it be a company or individual"

If that actually gets followed, that will be useful data
Cleaning up carbon credits is fundamentally opposed to their core function.

If they are high integrity and meaningful, they are expensive, and no polluters actually wants to pay much at all to greenwash their emissions footprint.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 30
If there's one thing we've learnt from the past 14 months, it's that heavy reliance on gas is a fantastic and reliable pathway to peace and security Japanese oil giant warns world peace at stake amid fears Aus
Definitely one of those 'you can tell who wrote it before you click on it' articles
"Listen. Gas - it's only the path to peace and security. Are you writing this down? Less gas, more war. That's how it is"

*distant booming*

"Ignore that, that's a major gas pipeline being literally bombed by a sophisticated international power. Where were we? METHANE FOR PEACE"
Read 6 tweets
Mar 28
Noticed that pro-climate-action accounts were stagnating or shrinking, and that denier accounts seemed to be ballooning. So - I checked, with some help, and....yep.

Elon Musk has made Twitter into a safe space for pro-fossil fuel disinformation. A 🧵

ketanjoshi.co/2023/03/28/mus… Image
There have already been a few qualitative and quantitative analyses of growing pro-fossil lying on Twitter, namely around COP27 and Musk's purchase of Twitter. @ISDglobal / @jkingy et al -->>>

@ISDglobal @jkingy It's felt very much like denier and delay accounts have been given artificial prominence since Musk's purchase. Boosted into the 'for you' tab, showing up at the top of replies, surfaced in the 'explore' topics under generic energy and climate topics, etc.
Read 23 tweets
Mar 27
That the fossil fuel lobby has wheeled out Graham Lloyd to shake a sword at the Safeguard Mechanism deal suggests that there's at least some good in there ■NET-ZERO TARGET AT RISK ALBANESE INSISTS INVESTMENT SECUR
APPEA mostly just seem deeply confused and vaguely anxious. They claim that mandating emissions reductions will lead to an increase in emissions. They're sort of just uttering a collection of random words at the moment in case they decide to fight it

web.archive.org/web/2023032703…
The AFR is similarly vaguely unhappy but can't exactly describe why, because they know they're not allowed to just come out and say "We don't think climate groups should be allowed to have any influence on climate policy", so they just kinda dance around it The AFR View  The AFR View Coalition allows climate policy t
Read 4 tweets
Mar 27
A lot of these have very general wording. What is a 'hard cap' and how does that diffee from Labor's carbon budget?

The net zero requirements for new projects....they'll just buy offsets?
Corporations will have no problem "justifying" 100% offsets. They'll classify everything as hard to abate. What sort of requirement is this? "we will ask them to make up some weak justifications". I bet they're quaking with fear.
The Chubb review was an 'independent' review of offsets and despite all the evidence it gave a big ugly tick.

Why will the review of HIR be any different? There freeze should be a ban. We already know they're dodgy.
Read 5 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!

:(