Somehow feels timely to remind that any new fossil fuel is not consistent with globally agreed climate goals.
Existing infrastructure will more than deplete the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 degrees. Every emission of CO2 leads to more global warming. This is not a tricky concept.

Is there “warming in the pipeline”? maybe surprisingly, no – many expect that our past emissions commit the world to continue warming, but that’s not the case. If we stop emitting (CO2), we will stop warming. Give or take small error bars. Here’s why…
bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/29… For a while (e.g. science.org/doi/epdf/10.11…), there was a lot of attention on how climate may continue to warm if we stabilise CO2 levels. So-called “committed warming”, or “warming in the pipeline”. The science isn’t changed, but there is a realisation this isn't the best question

Is overshoot “good” or “bad”? – it depends on your counterfactual, which often gets lost in the discussion. We hear a lot of “Problem with o/s is…” and also “o/s is achievable” which sound at odds. Here’s why we should be more careful with the narrative 🧵 If we compare 1.5 after overshoot against 1.5 with no overshoot, then the bad impacts are greater, some irreversible and the challenge of recovery is harder (need lots more CDR). So, in this case overshoot not seen as desirable

Really great session on overshoot in the IPCC/WMO COP side event. Bottom line – "it’s the journey not the destination". How we get to 1.5 matters and overshooting on the way leads to greater challenges and risks. My slides from today: From a biophysical perspective, reducing global temperature _is_ possible. But it requires globally net-negative emissions. Reducing emissions is not enough. Halving emissions is not enough. Stopping emissions is not enough – that would only stop warming increasing further