So, data centres are back in the news again ... doh! (short thread) rte.ie/radio/radio1/c…
First well done to @SadhbhO for rebutting serious deflections and misinformation in that clip. 👏👏
@SadhbhO Next: media cycle attention span is waaaay too short to properly address issues like this. 🫤But #FWIW here was an earlier outing on @TodaywithClaire - in Oct 2021 for goodness sake...
Which was prompted in part by this hearing of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Climate action the day before: oireachtas.ie/en/debates/deb…
And, to state the blindingly obvious, no such moratorium was adopted (quite the opposite!) and no such "full and detailed assessment" of how to square this with carbon budgets was undertaken.
@HaroldKingston1 If by "no deception" you mean "no *intention* to deceive" then I am happy to accept your declaration on that. But intended or no, it has the effect of misleading.
@HaroldKingston1 Perhaps you can state whether you accept (just as a matter of arithmetic) that aggregate global food production can increase even while production of some specific food types declines?
@HaroldKingston1 That is: there is no inherent conflict between reducing the production of *some* food types and still increasing global food production?
#funfact about the IE 2021 Climate Act: once the Climate Council recommends its first GHG budgets (spanning 2021-2030), THEN the much cited "target" of "51% emissions reduction by 2030 vs 2019" specified in s. 6A(5) becomes moot - it has no further force or role...
... we flip from a situation where that 2030 "point-in-time" emissions target is supposed to determine the available GHG budget up to that point, to the REVERSE situation where the 2030 "point in time" emissions become determined by the budget instead!
Does this matter? Well, it progressively will. Depending how we progress against meeting the (now binding) budget constraint, it may be possible to allow less than 51% reduction in 2030 ... OR (rather more likely?) it may be necessary to achieve MORE than 51% reduction in 2030.
THREAD 1/n: @merrionstreet@Dept_ECC: does the proposed new Irish climate action law actually, legally, COMMIT to stringent GHG emissions reduction over the period 2021-2030? (#spoileralert: “Probably not.”)
2/n: The IE Govt claims explicitly that “few, if any, countries have legislated for as steep an emissions reduction” as required by this bill: irishtimes.com/news/politics/…
3/n: However: Prof John Sweeney, @AndrewLRJackson and I wrote to the Govt on 14th April pointing out that the relevant section of the Bill (inserting a new s. 6A(5) in the existing 2015 Act) was defective in both law and science: docs.google.com/a/dcu.ie/viewe…
[Short? thread 1/n] The new Irish Climate Action Bill is now in Select Committee stage. The full list of proposed amendments is here: data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/…
[2/n] Dedicated followers [?] will recall that I, together with Prof. John Sweeney and @AndrewLRJackson previously raised significant concerns about the way the "2021-2030 interim target" was being transposed into the Bill:
[3/n] #TLDR: the 2020 Programme for Government committed to "to an average 7% per annum reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions from 2021 to 2030 (a 51% reduction over the decade)". Govt subsequently agreed to put this on a binding statutory basis via the new Bill...
The revised draft of the new Climate Bill (now "signed off" by government) has landed! I know many long, hard, hours went into this: well done to all, but especially @EamonRyan. Announcement and text here: gov.ie/en/publication…
It's not perfect, no bill could satisfy all demands: but for myself, on first speed read, this version has moved a *long* way and deserves wide support!
It now correctly identifies the overarching goals of climate mitigation policy as being, from the top, the "ultimate objective" of the UNFCCC: stabilization of GHG concentrations at a level preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system...
Albeit I have some slightly different perspectives...
I think "net zero" framing (and therefore even "achieve net zero by 2050 at the latest") is flawed and misleading. Commitment should be a fair share contribution to the Paris temperature goals (Article 2.1 is much more important than 4.1!).