There's a huge gap between what climate scientists are willing to say privately and what we're willing to say publicly, in terms of how dire a situation we're in. Colleagues, integrity demands we close this gap.

1.Hydrocarbon extraction
2.Sterlite
3.Kudankulam
4.Chennai-Salem Expressway
5.Neutrino
6.GAIL pipeline
7.Kattupalli Port
8.Uppur Thermal
Each one of these projects stalled/delayed.
Tamil Nadu is on its way to becoming a Kerala or Bengal. Oh! Kerala allowed GAIL & Vizhinjam Port

Those who say Kerala has highest social/educational indicators need to understand theirs is a remittance economy sustained by inflows from Gulf. 36% of Kerala's GDP is Gulf money. Without this their per capita income wd be half that of TN or at best 2/3rds.

Despite Gulf money per capita income of Kerala is less than TN. With a jobs crisis in Gulf due to the pandemic and falling Oil prices Kerala will face the moment of truth sooner than later.There is almost no project that causes zero environmental damage.

No highway has ever been built without trees being cut or land being acquired. No SEZ has ever been developed without land being acquired.Of course environmental protection is important. That is why we ask for safeguards. That is why there is an NGT. If Govt officials

are corrupt & ignore rules,solution is to hold them to account not stop all projects. Everyone of us including the protesters now travel on highways built by cutting lakhs of trees&on land acquired from farmers. Lakhs of our youth work in the same SEZ that were once paddy fields

It's (nearly) five years since the Paris Agreement was gaveled through… but was it any good? Tricky question. Based on emissions, temperature data and impacts, no. *But...* (thread)

The team at @SystemIQ_LTD have crunched the numbers & reviewed how far + fast sectors have shifted since 2015. Their take is the global economy could be a decade away from seismic tipping points that see the world move fast towards low carbon.

In 2015, zero-carbon technologies and business models could rarely compete with incumbent carbon-solutions. In 2020, zero-carbon solutions are competitive in sectors representing around 25% of emissions. In 2030 the figure’s looking like 70%.

What does this mean for a COVID-smashed world, where 2021 is shaping up to be a hellish mix of recessions and mass unemployment? Well, the 2020s could see a net increase of 35 million low carbon jobs if governments roll out the right policies + invest wisely.

Can the low carbon acceleration be pinned to Paris? Not entirely, but partly. In 2014 no-one talked of net zero targets. Now 120+ countries either have these plans or are working on them. By mid 2021 the US, China, EU, UK, Japan, Korea, Canada will have these targets.

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.

The Sixth Carbon Budget (2033-2037) charts the decisive move to zero carbon for the UK. The CCC shows that polluting emissions must fall by almost 80% by 2035, compared to 1990 levels – a big step-up in ambition. (1/12) #UKCarbonBudget 🧵

Our recommended Sixth Carbon Budget would achieve well over half of the required emissions reduction to 2050 in the next 15 years, but decisive action must start today. (2/12) #UKCarbonBudget

The recommended Sixth Carbon Budget and UK NDC also reflect the goals and requirements of the Paris Agreement, recognising the UK’s responsibility as a richer developed nation and its respective capabilities. (3/12) #UKCarbonBudget

When we recommended the UK’s #NetZero target for 2050, we demonstrated that any negative economic impact was likely to be small and the overall impact could turn out to be positive. Our analysis for this report reinforces that finding. (4/12) #UKCarbonBudget

Our estimate of the annualised resource cost (which measures the net additional cost each year to deliver the same services with lower emissions) has fallen to less than 1% of GDP through to 2050. (5/12) #UKCarbonBudget

The whiteness of this piece on "climate refugees" (corrected link) is deep.

The piece centers the story of Jen and Ryan Cashman, a white couple + their kids who used to live in Paradise, California.

It does include an interview with Dr. @JalonneWNewsome who explains that climate change hits folks of color harder, and they may be less able to move due to fewer economic resources + less willing to move b/c of greater ties to their communities.

After this perfunctory nod to her excellent work, then the reporter (*cough* abuser *cough*) goes on to segue with one of the biggest "yeah, buts" I've ever heard...

"If you have the luxury of choosing where to live and climate change is a factor, here's the formula..."