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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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
For emissions removed using carbon capture technology, it actually sits at the lower end. 1.5C scenarios rely _a lot_ on (largely untested) CCS
Of course, the more fossil fuels are burned, the harder it gets.
Shell says oil and gas, “will remain significant for decades” and “there needs to be continued investment in…supply”.
A legal disclaimer adds:
“Ultimately, whether society meets its goals to decarbonise is not within Shell’s control.”
https://t.co/Ngj6MRMMTk
More from Science
1/ Automobiles and Intake Fraction. Since cars are back in the news I thought I would retweet this model result I offered in early April 2020. I focused only on 1 micron particles & accounted for windows completely closed & cracked slightly open.
2/ Related air exchange rates were based on experimental results in literature for mid-sized sedans. Particle deposition to indoor surfaces were accounted for, as the surface to volume ratio in a 3 m3 cab is large. An important outcome was the intake fraction (IF)
3/ Here, IF is the number of particles (or virions in collective particles) inhaled by a receptor DIVIDED BY the number or particles (or virions in collective particles) emitted by an infector.
4/ Integrated over the two hour drive (in this example) the IF for all windows closed & a receptor at rest is 0.08 (8% of what comes out of the infectors respiratory system ends up in the respiratory system of the receptor). 8%! That is a very high intake factor.
5/ With additional ventilation from cracking a window open drops the IF to 0.012 (1.2%) still relatively high. Can get lower by opening more windows.
Simulation: Riding in car for 120 min w/ infected passenger who seems fine other than a cough every few mins. (1) a lot of SARS-CoV-2 virus (in fine aerosol particles) accumulation in car cabin w/ windows closed; (2) cracking window open slightly = dramatic reduction. #COVID19 pic.twitter.com/bCmrmnLUPG
— Dr. Richard Corsi (@CorsIAQ) April 4, 2020
2/ Related air exchange rates were based on experimental results in literature for mid-sized sedans. Particle deposition to indoor surfaces were accounted for, as the surface to volume ratio in a 3 m3 cab is large. An important outcome was the intake fraction (IF)
3/ Here, IF is the number of particles (or virions in collective particles) inhaled by a receptor DIVIDED BY the number or particles (or virions in collective particles) emitted by an infector.
4/ Integrated over the two hour drive (in this example) the IF for all windows closed & a receptor at rest is 0.08 (8% of what comes out of the infectors respiratory system ends up in the respiratory system of the receptor). 8%! That is a very high intake factor.
5/ With additional ventilation from cracking a window open drops the IF to 0.012 (1.2%) still relatively high. Can get lower by opening more windows.
