Dear followers, the thing is:
I'm not doing X. I'm not a commodity.

A thread. 1/ Twitter has been an important source of information for me for years.

I also made acquaintances that I value a lot. Thank you - to all of you!

But I'm also done with the corporate freewheeling, the treatment of users as fodder, the rampant verbal violence, the direction.

Palaeoloxodon antiquus were huge: ice age forest elefants living in warm interglacials, much larger than today's elefants, larger than mammoths. It somehow is inconceivable that humans might have hunted them. (1/4) But just a little too the south of here, at Neumark-Nord, a former lignite mine cutting through interglacial lake environments, now destroyed, the remains of over 70 of these beasts have been found - and many with cut marks on the bones made by Neanderthal stone tools. (2/4)

Recently a post about the inefficiency of our food production system met with a lot of interest: too many calories go to feeding lifestock! But agriculture also is a leading cause today of planetary boundary transgression. Here's our analysis of 2020. 1/5 nature.com/articles/s4189… Here's a figure showing the number of planetary boundaries currently transgressed (of nine) due to agricultural practices. Research was done with the LPJmL global biosphere model simulating the biogeochemistry of plant productivity, including of agricultural crops. 2/5

👉 New paper from our group!
Of all biomass-based 'negative emissions' options, biochar is perhaps the most interesting. Added to soils it can increase yields. So how much C could be sequestered globally without using extra land or compromising calories produced? @PIK_Climate 1/7 Here's the idea: biomass feedstock is grown to produce biochar, bio-oil & pyrogases. Added to (sub)tropical croplands, the biochar increases yields, freeing up land to produce the feedstock. We used our global vegetation/crop model LPJmL4 and findings of field studies. 2/7

There is more in the G7 communiqué on equality, carbon pricing, minerals, mining ... and this on carbon dioxide removal (CDR):
* "CDR cannot replace but must supplement urgent action on decarbonisation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions"
* "remains imperative to (1/4) protect, restore and expand our natural carbon sinks"
* "negative emissions technologies with robust social and environmental safeguards"
* "could also play a role in reaching net zero emissions"
* " can contribute to lowering net emissions in the near-term, to offsetting (2/4)

On climate, the G7 again go to the strange language of "strengthening" and "keeping within reach" - not "ensuring":
"unwavering commitment to strengthening the implementation of the Paris Agreement. To this end, we commit to urgent, ambitious and inclusive action in this (1/4) decade to reduce emissions to keep a limit of 1.5 °C temperature rise within reach".

They then repeat IPCC findings on peaking and reductions and "highlight that all G7 members committed to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 at the latest" - when for these (2/4)

More items from today's long G7 communiqué - good points not matched by current policies:
* IPCC and IPBES should collaborate more because climate and nature after linked
* financing is key; current crisis recovery has to be in line with not harming the environment
* (1/4) healthy ecosystems are more resilient to climate change
* commitment to achieving land degradation neutrality
* committed to reducing anthropogenic pressures on freshwater, including groundwater
* commit to taking urgent concrete action to tackle the decline of ocean (2/4)

Two top-line quotes from today's G7 Climate, Energy and Environment Ministers’ Communiqué (very nice words - I wish action would actually match them):

"We express our deep concern regarding the triple crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, recognising (1/4) that these challenges are inextricably interlinked and mutually reinforcing, and that they are driven largely by human activity and by unsustainable patterns of consumption and production."

"We highlight the message from the latest report of the IPCC that the window of (2/4)

So it has happened, like every year: the miracle of the cherry tree in my garden. And, as every year, I am reminded of Berthold Brecht's poem "Spring 1938", written in Danish exile, full of foreboding of the looming war, using images of daily life and nature outside. 1/4 "Rain clouds hang over the Sound but the garden /is touched by golden sun. The pear trees /have green leaves and not yet blossoms, the cherry trees /however blossoms but not yet leaves [Into this] the distant thunder mixes /of the Third Reich's /maneuvering ship artillery." 2/4

"How we made ourselves dependent on Putin" - a saga of power, money, influence and a deeply rooted failure of German politics: one of the best recent opinion pieces by @CKemfert (in German, use translation of interested).
rnd.de/wirtschaft/oel… "Instead of pressing forward with the transition to renewables, Germany in the last years has increased its dependence on Russian oil, gas and coal. How could that happen?" she asks. "And why?" - "First were big business players that profited from 'cheap' oil, gas and nuclear."

Yesterday's IPCC WG3 report seems to have widely reinforced the conviction that "substantial CDR is needed for reaching climate targets". In my view, this reading neglects 3 very important aspects that deeply change the outlook: /1 1️⃣ It is based on what is "needed" to reach climate goals" - rather than on what can be sustainably *supplied* within ecological boundaries.
It is an example of an economics thinking where demand drives reality and where if you throw money at it there will be a solution. /2

👉‼️ A very strong message on biodiversity! Today, the "10 Must-Knows in Biodiversity Research" were published! Coordinated by my colleague (and member of my department) Kirsten Thonicke, a large coalition of 45 German biodiversity researchers has produced this text.🧵1/12 I think it is really strong and very important. Currently available only in German, in what follows I highlight a summary of these 10 Must Knows in 10 tweets. Download the much more extensive and detailed report including policy recommendations here: zenodo.org/record/6257476…. 2/12

1/n An interesting new decision was published today by the German Constitutional Court on climate justice. Constitutional complaints against the inadequacy or lack of climate laws in the German regional states were rejected. bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pre…
Some explanations 🧵: 2/n Germany is a federal republic consisting of 16 regional states ("Bundesländer"). Therefore we do not only have a national, federal climate law, but also, within that framework, climate laws in some of these states.

A common response to posts is to champion the miracles of nuclear power. So I am very happy that the experts of Scientists for Future @sciforfuture have now published their long-awaited analysis "Nuclear energy and climate" - why it is too slow, too expensive & too dangerous. The text is in German but there is a really good long English summary of findings, which I'll post below. This is by experts and I hope it helps lay to rest many of the ill-informed ideas about nuclear out there. The full text has 98 pages. It's here: zenodo.org/record/5573719

The Federation of German Industries (BDI) is not known for their ecological inclinations. So let's see what their recommendations on climate pathways are, published last week. The paper was done with Boston Consulting, but BDI makes it fully their own. english.bdi.eu/publication/ne… They start out with calling for "the greatest transformation in post-war history" and depart on the basis of current EU and German reduction targets.

Here's why I did *not* sign the letter published today by a coalition of advisory councils to the government on a sustainability transition - despite having been involved from the beginning and having been invited to do so as a member of @umweltrat (which did not sign, either). I had very much hoped that such a joint letter by top-level advisory bodies would happen: to emphasize that the time for further delay in the ecological and climate crisis is over. Politicians proclaim this decade to be one of decisions - but much remains to be done.

"We declare that putting biodiversity on a path to recovery is a defining challenge of this decade" - the Kunming declaration published today has clear words - but where it counts, on the targets, it only "notes" calls for action - they're not part of any commitment. It merely says: "Noting the call of many countries to protect and conserve 30 per cent of land and sea areas through well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures by 2030" ... which signals a critical lack of commitment for now.

1/n To conclude from the 🇩🇪 CO2 budget analysis & programmes of political parties that "1.5 is lost" is not a correct conclusion. Globally, 1.5 is still feasible, the world would have to be neutral by about 2050. It just means that Germany is lagging in its contribution. 2/n That is: lagging IF one measures the German contribution by population share. Some specialists question whether this is helpful, whether high-emitting nations should be held to such a standard when what really counts is the global outcome, to be fought for internationally.

And here is the most important figure from @elena_erdmann's article on @zeitonline. I hope I'm allowed to twitter it given that I am listed as a source. Go read zeit.de/wissen/umwelt/… "Which CO2 budget do the party programmes correspond to?" Grey bars: CO2 budgets for 1.5 degrees with 50% and 67% likelihood, for equal emission rights per capita, from 2022. Purple: left party, green: green party, red: social democrats, black: conservatives, yellow: liberals.

Three comments on tonights's @ARDKontraste programme (btw, a lot gets filmed - here at least 20 minutes, going into many questions - and one never knows what short sentence ends up being used ...):
1) the team did a great job researching and computing CO2 budget numbers 1/3 2) They never mentioned to me that they'd end up suggesting prolonging nuclear, albeit just a few years.
3) Be aware that this is just what big energy aimed for: delay, cap, stifle renewables, then ask for prolonged operation by projecting shortages. A result of politics. 2/3

@NeueOekonomie has published an analysis of the CO2 budgets implied by the platforms of German parties for the Sept. 26 general election, a decisive election for climate, and compared them with the budgets we advised the government on at @Umweltrat. 1/5 👉
konzeptwerk-neue-oekonomie.org/eine-wahlprogr… Some comments: From my first reading, this is well done and well argued. The budget numbers are based on IPCC SR15. Updated to the new AR6, they would be slightly larger, particularly the 1.5/67% number: ~1.8 GtCO2. But that doesn't change the picture, the conclusions a lot. 2/5