Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Dr Natalie Jones Profile picture
Dr Natalie Jones
@nataliejon_es
Climate & energy policy; sometimes int'l lawyer. @IISD_Energy. By-Fellow @Hughes_Hall. Alum @CSERCambridge @TrinCollCam. 355ppm, Pākehā, she/her. Opinions own
Dec 6, 2023 • 36 tweets • 7 min read
It's Day 7 here at #COP28 and parties were debating fossil fuel phase out / energy package in the Global Stocktake until late last night.

My summary: At the end of the first week of COP, the opponents of fossil fuel phase out have revealed themselves 🧵 CHINA, INDIA, and the ARAB GROUP (which includes Saudi Arabia) proposed deleting the entirety of paragraph 35 (energy package) Image
Dec 5, 2023 • 15 tweets • 3 min read
It's day 6 of #COP28 and a new global stocktake text dropped overnight.

Reminder: this is the Paris Agreement reality checkpoint that will affect countries' NDCs up to 2040.

Here's what it says on fossil fuels/energy package: Image 1st interesting bit: subpara (c). There are three options there. Each option reflects an outcome that some parties want.

Option 1: "An orderly and just phase out of fossil fuels". No vague/undefined "unabated" language. At least 26 countries are pushing for this.
Sep 20, 2023 • 25 tweets • 3 min read
Alright, so I've just listened to all the world leaders' speeches at the #UNGA78 #ClimateAmbitionSummit and I have some thoughts - on fossil fuels 🧵 I've heard a lot of these high-level speeches in my time, including attending the last time @antonioguterres held a climate summit, in 2019.
Nov 13, 2021 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
Finally (and this will be my last thread relating to the new texts), let's briefly consider loss and damage: #COP26

unfccc.int/sites/default/… Recall that the main discussion has been on how to operationalize the Santiago Network on loss and damage. Many developing countries have been pushing for the decision to address finance for loss and damage.

This draft decision still contains language on the functions of the SN:
Nov 13, 2021 • 11 tweets • 3 min read
And now onto finance: #COP26

Long-term climate finance and the post-2025 goal are both still presidency proposals, not L docs (indicating they're still at play) (unlike Adaptation Fund matters)

unfccc.int/sites/default/…
unfccc.int/sites/default/…
unfccc.int/sites/default/… LONG-TERM CLIMATE FINANCE

Regarding the USD 100 billion, the LTF decision would note "with serious concern" the non-fulfillment of the goal, urge developed country parties to scale up finance towards achieving the goal.
Nov 13, 2021 • 18 tweets • 6 min read
Starting a new thread to consider the Article 6 decisions: #COP26

unfccc.int/sites/default/…
unfccc.int/sites/default/…
unfccc.int/sites/default/… The decisions are all in one big bracket (unlike e.g. the COP/CMA cover decisions), highlighting they definitely haven't been agreed yet.

6.2 (ITMOS)

The decision kicks the can down the road on several further pieces of work:

For 2022:
- special circumstances of LDCs & SIDS
Nov 13, 2021 • 25 tweets • 7 min read
Ok, a bit later than others, but reading through the new texts slowly and here's my take. #COP26

First, the cover decisions.

The first thing to note is the format of these texts. Unlike some other decisions, they're not in the "L doc" format yet. They're a Presidency proposal, meaning they're still very much open for feedback / changes.

unfccc.int/sites/default/…
unfccc.int/sites/default/…
unfccc.int/sites/default/…
Nov 12, 2021 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
The new loss & damage (WIM) text just dropped #COP26

unfccc.int/sites/default/… No mention of the financial/technical facility from the cover decision

Seems like the "form follows function" side won out
Nov 11, 2021 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
Finally (...5 hours later) getting around to reading the new Common Time Frames decision draft text #COP26

Basically this governs how long a time period countries' NDCs are expected to cover. Main disagreement has been 5 vs 10 years.

🧵(short) Image At the start of the week there were 9 options, now it's down to just one pair of brackets.

It looks like there's agreement on a 5 year common time frame (NDCs communicated in 2025 will apply from 2030-2035)

BUT with an exception for parties who are "not in a position" to do so
Nov 11, 2021 • 11 tweets • 3 min read
We're about to start a finance contact group #COP26. (No, the technical work didn't finish last night.)

Overnight we've seen new texts on long-term finance, the post-2025 finance goal, and the Green Climate Fund

unfccc.int/sites/default/…
unfccc.int/sites/default/… unfccc.int/sites/default/…
Aug 11, 2019 • 34 tweets • 7 min read
This is wrong on so many levels. I respect a lot of @GreenRupertRead's work, but this is not one of those times.

The idea that diplomats should take low-emissions transport to climate conferences will seem obvious to many people, but it's dangerous. THREAD: Some background on how the UN climate talks work. The process is key. Follow me while I geek out a bit here - I'm a process nerd precisely BECAUSE it's often overlooked but is deeply unfair and serves the interests of big carbon emitters.