THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Some 70% of people, depends how you ask, accept the global emergency. Climate system destabilisation is one aspect, declining biodiversity and increasing pollution is another. I ask: what would actually *break* if humanity responded decisively? 1/

What were the big energy and climate surprises of the Trump era? Four years ago, I described the most plausible arc for US climate policy under Trump (it was a boring, safe bet) but expected there'd be unexpected developments too. So how about a look back? https://t.co/1Valz4eTEg

1) The pandemic was a huge surprise, obviously, though maybe it's too early to say how that will affect the energy/climate landscape. So far, it’s put a brake on U.S. fracking and induced Europe to pledge staggering sums on hydrogen. Maybe global CO2 emissions have peaked, idk.

2) The growth of battery storage on the US grid has, I think, been a surprise. This interview with @jburwen does a nice job of laying out the truly staggering changes in the storage landscape since 2015, driven by falling costs and some key policy changes.

3) The impact of the IPCC report on 1.5°C was surprising to me. I often wondered what'd happen once it became clear that the world was unlikely to stay below 2°C. Instead, the climate community and world leaders rallied around an even more aggressive, harder to hit target!

4) It was not obvious that Trump's retreat from climate action would spur states, cities, companies, other nations to make even more aggressive net zero pledges of their own. But that’s what happened—those pledges have really proliferated at a scale that’s been surprising to me.

A brilliant talk that punctures current discourse on climate ambition in Scotland, setting out what's really needed, by @KevinClimate for @ScotClimateCA

📽️ https://t.co/i02FtSkJT8 📽️

Well worth watching. Otherwise, here's a summary thread 👇
1/10

Want scientific assessment of what Scotland should do to achieve Paris Agreement temperature targets? Look to carbon budgets. See that a failure to rapidly reduce emissions will eat up the carbon budget in just a few years, leaving impossible burdens for future generations. 2/10

Are UK emissions down 45% in 30 years? Not when including emissions from aviation & shipping, and imports & exports – then they are only down 10%. Over three decades, we have had reductions of less than 0.5% per year. 3/10

Scotland’s average per person consumption emissions are still double the global average. Scotland’s consumption emissions have not meaningfully reduced in the last 20 years… 4/10

Principles of global equity and justice mean that Scotland’s fair slice of the global carbon budget is just a few hundred million tonnes of CO2, which is less than ten years of Scotland’s emissions at current levels. 5/10

EU Summit just agreed a “binding EU target of a net domestic reduction of at least 55% in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030” - so UK going somewhat further at 68%...

That is in reference to 1990 carbon emissions - which is the standard point of reference

VDL trying to sound conciliatory - making point about the ratchet clause that all sides “remain free - sovereign” to do what they are want as regards matching future increases in regulations, but that both sides should retain right to adapt conditions for market entry

On fishing VDL says UK must understand legitimate expectations of EU fishing fleet based on decades and sometimes centuries of access ...

journalists at the EU summit seem more interested in asking Merkel/ VDL about Turkey than summit Brexit discussions, so far zero questions - some informational value there ...

Long thread here... from Keith, on tree guards:

I really don’t want to spread 120,000 plastic tree guards across the side of our lovely hill, the hill where I grew up and now farm, on the eastern edge of the Black Mountains. So, I’ve taken a good look at the pros,... 1/25

the cons and the alternatives, to try and decide rationally, which is the best approach for our plant on the Bryn Arw.

It has become the accepted norm in the UK that to plant a tree, you need to put your sapling in the ground and then wrap a plastic tree guard around it.

This is simply ‘how it’s done’ now. This practice uses a huge amount of plastic; worse still, it disperses plastic extremely efficiently around the countryside. In some rural places, un-retrieved tree guards are by far the biggest source of plastic pollution.

And yet the first commercial plastic tree guards only came on the market 38 years ago. There are many perfectly healthy woodlands and trees that are older than this, and which became established without plastic – which begs the question: do we really need guards?

Plastic tree guards have several uses, some of which did revolutionise tree planting when they first came out. In particular, they:
•protect your saplings from things that want to eat them;
•provide a microclimate, which enhances tree growth, according to the manufacturers;

Oh fuck. I am listening to Gormley's interview w/ Patrick Moore about climate change from Jan 21. Gorm is being fed a pile of horseshit and just happily swallowing every word. This is garbage. /1

Moore says you can't go out in the field & see what CO2 is doing. Which is just false. You can go in the field & measure atmospheric CO2 & its change directly. And he calls himself a sciencey guy? /2

Then he's saying, b/c some on the left believe GMOs are bad w/ no evidence, therefore everything they believe they believe w/ no evidence so therefore scientists who say the climate is changing are making up stories? This is ridiculous. /3

Often when I tune into climate deniers, there's stuff I hadn't heard before that I have to do a bunch of reading to find out what's real & what isn't. So far with Moore, I don't even have to make a list of stuff to check to know this is all nonsense. /4

I'm saying, he's going over old, long debunked talking points. This is tired & boring. /5