NEW Open Access paper out (completed during my days at @IC_Grantham):

“Adjusting 1.5 degree C climate change mitigation pathways in light of adverse new information”.



It’s about managing #ClimateRisk.

A brief thread 1/ nature.com/articles/s4146…
Here’s the question: what might we do – and therefore how should we prepare to act – if we embark on a rapid 1.5C emissions reduction pathway and subsequently find out things are not going according to plan?

2/

📄NEW PAPER in @Joule_CP out today: Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) have been hugely influential in charting low-carbon pathways.

BUT we need more low-carbon pathways developed outside of IAMs.

Free share link: authors.elsevier.com/a/1gC-5925JEJy…

And a thread 1/11 We’re in a global #polycrisis, and the world’s volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (#VUCA) can’t be fully captured in IAMs. 2/11

1/n **NEW PAPER** in @NatureClimate on the near-term transition risks and longer-term physical risks of climate change. What are these risks and how do they compare? A thread...

(free read-only link here): nature.com/articles/s4155…
rdcu.be/cC8Bu
2/n Comparing the costs of #ClimateAction with the benefits of such action is necessary, so that we don’t end up thinking there’s only a mitigation cost, and no mitigation benefit. This was laid out clearly by @alexkoberle in our recent paper:
nature.com/articles/s4155…

A thread on forecasting low-carbon technology costs, to accompany this paper with @michaelgrubb9, @DrRobertGross, Richard Green, Phil Heptonstall and Charlie Wilson. Doing this well is important if we’re going to get a handle on the net benefits of climate change mitigation. 1/10

https://twitter.com/now_publishers/status/1427895539295604740

There are – broadly speaking – three ways in which future technology costs tend to be estimated:

1.Extrapolate past trends (learning curves)
2.Ask experts (in elicitations)
3.Forecast how the costs of key parts of the technology will change (engineering assessments)

2/10