#AirPollution, measured by annual PM2.5--particles finer than a human hair--reduced in bigger cities such as Delhi & Varanasi but increased in smaller cities such as Fatehabad & Moradabad, finds a @CSEINDIA analysis of 26 cities. Follow the thread for insights:

New paper: Review and Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Residential Buildings in Humid
Subtropical and Tropical Climates by Daniel Satola et al. 2021 - A Thread (1/9)

We reviewed more than 70 building LCA studies in climate regions common in the Global South, studying building cases from Asia, Oceania, South America and North America. We conduct detailed analyses ...
(2/9)

...based on a final sample of 36 building cases which were fit for harmonization of results. Therein, life cycle GHG emissions show a wide range of 491 to 4811 kgCO2eq/m2. To understand more: First, how structural material choice is influencing emissions...
(3/9)

...we study both embodied and life cycle GHG emission in relation to primary materials used in the building structure. This shows lowest embodied emissions with wood as structural material, and potentially low emissions from use of concrete (non-reinforced). Second,... (4/9)

...we investigate specific design strategies applied in the different cases to analyse their potential for reducing operational and/or embodied GHG emissions. Substantial embodied GHG emissions reduction can be achieved by use of local materials, ... (5/9)

This #NewYear we must get serious about climate change. A big obstacle: our brains.

Current risks are vastly different from our ancestors, but our brains are wired the same. Knowing the science behind decision-making helps us better talk about climate threats & spark action. 1/

I’ve dedicated my career to understanding what factors influence our perceptions of risk & shape behavioral outcomes, especially around climate action.

We clearly do not judge risks accurately. Let’s try this example. What is more likely to kill you:

Ppl often say shark attacks even though plane parts are 30x more likely to kill us. Attacks are more sensational/easier to recall.

Brains react in certain ways to risks around us, rapidly scanning environmental cues (e.g. snake’s stance) with subliminal and automated processing.

How does brain wiring relate to climate action? We're influenced by triggers such as if we can see risk or if we trust who communicates it to us.

Bluntly, we overestimate unserious risks like vaccinating children and underestimate seemingly far away risks like rising sea levels.

Sociology shows how even political identities influence risk perception. A human evolutionary trait allows us to avoid cognitive dissonance from info 1) that isn’t pleasant or 2) contradicts beliefs integral to our identity/tribe. We’re wired to make snap judgements for comfort.

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

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.