Hi, I'm #MarvellousMarthy & this is a mini #GlobalScienceShow to celebrate @WomenScienceDay. I'd like to tell you about my STEM Role Model @MarineMumbles. Stick around for @philjemmett who’s up next. #WomenInSTEM #WomenInScience4SDGs #WomenInScience #girlsinSTEM
I have a Motto for Rockpooling and it is “Crabs,Crabs,Crabs!”, what is yours? People think scientists are super smart people who have to be the best in the class. This isn’t true,
There is so much unanswered science, so many problems that need to be solved. If you love an area of science keep learning, keep asking questions, because science is always waiting for the next person who thinks like no one else,
More from Science
I took a look at Shell's first ever 1.5C scenario and found that it is... remarkably similar to its “well-below 2C” scenario.
Oil, gas, coal, solar.... all basically unchanged.
The key difference: A new forest the size of Brazil to suck up the extra CO2.
Including "nature-based solutions" in the outlook brings forward the date for net-zero emissions to 2058.
Without them their pathway for CO2 emissions is the same as the previous one.
(It's also towards the higher end of 1.5C emissions pathways.)
The "Brazil-sized" forest idea isn't actually new, it has been kicking around for a couple of years.
It was referenced in the "well-below 2C" scenario although not formally included in it, and Shell's CEO has been framing it as the only viable way of getting to 1.5C.
Fine, but who is going to plant all those trees? Well... Shell says it will plant some of them.
Only yesterday Shell said forests were a key part of its net-zero strategy.
Not everyone is convinced though
https://t.co/RaJm7tOHxb
Given that Shell's 1.5C scenario also sees a big scaling up of bioenergy, the question remains: where are all those trees and bioenergy crops going to go?
Oil, gas, coal, solar.... all basically unchanged.
The key difference: A new forest the size of Brazil to suck up the extra CO2.
Including "nature-based solutions" in the outlook brings forward the date for net-zero emissions to 2058.
Without them their pathway for CO2 emissions is the same as the previous one.
(It's also towards the higher end of 1.5C emissions pathways.)
The "Brazil-sized" forest idea isn't actually new, it has been kicking around for a couple of years.
It was referenced in the "well-below 2C" scenario although not formally included in it, and Shell's CEO has been framing it as the only viable way of getting to 1.5C.
Fine, but who is going to plant all those trees? Well... Shell says it will plant some of them.
Only yesterday Shell said forests were a key part of its net-zero strategy.
Not everyone is convinced though
https://t.co/RaJm7tOHxb
Shell plans to use forests to remove 120 Mt/yr of CO2 by 2030.
— Greg Muttitt (@FuelOnTheFire) February 12, 2021
Appropriate land for forestation is finite, and risks competition with food production and human rights of current land owners/users, esp Indigenous
Given that Shell's 1.5C scenario also sees a big scaling up of bioenergy, the question remains: where are all those trees and bioenergy crops going to go?
