It's completely understandable that the Emissions Gap media headlines focus on the bad news: if current policies continue we're looking at a catastrophic 3.1C warming. That means curtains for rainforests, coral, ice caps, unliveable conditions in tropics, superstorms etc. But... ...it's not the most likely outcome, not even close. Current policies won't continue. We're not going to be emitting today's CO2 levels in 2050, which is what drives the 3.1C outcome. As the IEA says, the clean energy transition is fully underway and likely unstoppable. So...

It's over for nuclear in Germany. The SDP-Green coalition has won a vote in the Bundestag backing more coal burning so that the three remaining nuclear plants can be switched off as planned this year. Climate targets may have to be abandoned as a result.

faz.net/aktuell/wirtsc… Finally, there's an environmental group dedicated to stopping this madness. If this makes you as angry as it does me, please join @letsreplanet replanet.ngo We've just won on the EU taxonomy. Most Germans support keeping nuclear switched on - the tide is turning.

Germany says the earliest it can get off Russian oil and gas is 2025. The EU says 2027. This is NOT true. They could stop buying Putin's dirty fossil fuels IMMEDIATELY if they wanted to truly support the people of Ukraine. In this thread I'll show you how... #switchoffputin 1/12 (For simplicity I'll focus here on gas. Oil is more easily substitutable, as is coal.) This is based on a report I have co-authored for the new environmental NGO @letsreplanet. Press release: replanet.ngo/post/switch-of… 2/12

With each new Russian atrocity in Ukraine, calls for NATO intervention increase. Are we sleepwalking towards nuclear war? The appetite for risk is increasing with the horror of civilian casualties. Putin is cornered and may escalate. What's the worst that can happen? Thread: 1/12 With memories of the Cold War fading, some seem to suggest that nuclear war is worth risking. That is not what the science says. Nuclear war scenarios have been thoroughly evaluated using climate models - the same ones used by the IPCC to project global warming. 2/12

Do you remember the famous 97% study - that 97% of climate science supported the consensus on human-caused climate change? Well we have just published an update for 2012-2021 papers in the same journal, Environmental Research Letters. The figure is now... drumroll please...99.9%! Big shoutout to my co-authors at Cornell University, Ben Houlton and Simon Perry. The Cornell Chronicle piece detailing the study is below.

news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/1…

New Nature paper out today
nature.com/articles/s4158…
states very clearly what is needed if governments are serious about limiting global heating to 1.5C, as agreed at Paris.

Spoiler: No new fossil fuelled infrastructure, anywhere, ever. From now on.

Read thread for details... Existing infrastructure - if operated until the end of its lifetime - commits us to 658 billion tonnes (Gt) CO2 future emissions. That's -

358 Gt from electricity (mainly power plants)
162 from industry
64 from transport, mostly on-road vehicles

So BP spent $12 million persuading voters to defeat the modest carbon tax proposal in Washington State. So much for Beyond Petroleum. Numerous other Big Oil usual suspects (e.g. Koch) also in play. News report: seattletimes.com/seattle-news/p… Big oil contributors: pdc.wa.gov/browse/campaig… Oil companies also poured in $millions to defeat climate-protecting measures in other states. reuters.com/article/us-col… Big Oil might hide behind consumer inertia but their dead weight in blocking political climate action is all too clear.

It is saying that those claiming to have 'converted' to GMOs based on objective truth should not be taken at face value. Instead it is taking a class-based perspective to see (us) as middle class intellectuals seeking to use science to bolster our class positions. They do not accept that "science" is a thing - they see it as a social construct which replicates particular power relations in society. As they put it, "heteromasculinized and whitened forms of power". In other words, science is a form of power domination.

Good lord! The @guardian is printing propaganda piece by anti-science activist @careygillam (whose work is funded by anti-vaccine/organic lobby group) as if it was real news... This is the sort of crap that gives liberal media a bad name. theguardian.com/us-news/2018/a… @guardianeco Here's where Carey Gillam gets her money - USRTK, which is mostly funded by Organic Consumers Association. OCA was the body that spread the anti-vaccine scare in the US last year among target minority communities. marklynas.org/2016/08/anti-g…