Neil Grant

*TAPPING THE SIGN*:

People's "concern" over immigration doesn't track actual immigration levels, it tracks the level of media coverage we give to immigration

Thanks Gunnar, it has been such a pleasure working on these scenarios with you! The REMIND model continues to be a crucial foundation for best available science on 1.5ºC!

Rescuing 1.5°C: new evidence on the highest possible ambition to… This study shows that, even after years of insufficient action, the world can still return to well below 1.5°C of warming this century if countries pursue the “highest possible ambition” in climate ac...

This scenario gives me hope, and I hope it gives you hope to. Let’s double down on action to try and rescue 1.5ºC.

Read more here: climateanalytics.org/publications...

But it shows that we don’t have to give up on 1.5ºC (and with it, give up on the most vulnerable).

Personally, I’m all in on the fight for 1.5ºC. It’s not a magic line in the sand, but it’s a lifeline for climate justice.

If we deliver these four levers, we can peak temperatures and get back below 1.5ºC pre-2100.

This is not a “good” scenario. It’s one of profound loss & climate impacts that were totally avoidable if we’d acted in line with the science and cut emissions earlier. I struggle to feel "happy" about it

If you don’t think this CDR scale-up is possible, that’s fair.

The good news is that even BECCS/DACCS only scale to 1 GtCO2 by 2050 and never beyond that, we can still get below 1.5ºC pre-2100 (I ran the numbers 🤓)

We’re pushing the CDR frontier, but if we fall short we can still rescue 1.5ºC

We have tried to stay within feasibility limits on CDR & avoid mad reliance on tree-planting. But this is still a lot of CDR.

This CDR is not compensating for fossil fuels – which are phased out fully.

The choice of fossil phaseout OR removals was always a dumb one. It’s no longer a choice we have

4️⃣ Removals
Carbon removal is controversial – I get it. I wrote my PhD criticising the over-reliance on CDR in many global scenarios.

But in a world of overshoot, removals are a necessity not a choice. We either accept a radical scale-up of removals, or a radical escalation of climate risks.

3️⃣ Methane
Methane is a super pollutant, but it only hangs around in the atmosphere for around ~12 years. That means if we cut methane emissions, then within about a decade, the amount of methane in the air will start falling, and that will help bring temperatures down

Cop28 president says there is ‘no science’ behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels Exclusive: UAE’s Sultan Al Jaber says phase-out of coal, oil and gas would take world ‘back into caves’

2️⃣ Fossil phaseout
Renewable electricity + targeted hydrogen/e-fuels push fossil fuels out of the mix. Not to low levels, but to ZERO.

Sorry Al-Jaber, but you’re wrong 😉 We can, and must, phase out fossil fuels

www.theguardian.com/environment/...

1️⃣ Electricity ⚡
The HPA leans into electrification. Electricity is the future – it’s cheaper, it’s smarter, it’s just fundamentally better than continuing to burn stuff (which is sooooo last century). See @ember-energy.org's great work on this!

Two-thirds of demand comes from electricity by 2050

These curves look pretty scary 😬. How do we actually achieve them? We identify 4 levers, that need to ALL be pulled with the highest possible ambition to deliver this scenario.

If we achieve that, then temperatures would be set to peak at ~1.7ºC – 0.2ºC above the Paris Agreement’s limit.

But by phasing out fossil fuels, cutting methane & scaling up removals, we can bring temperatures back below 1.5ºC pre-2100.

We can still rescue 1.5ºC!

Let’s dive in. First, emissions
❌ We can no longer halve emissions by 2030.
✅ But we can still cut them by ~20%, or 10 GtCO2e
🏃 Post 2030, we need to play catch-up with the IPCC scenarios to make up on lost time
🎯Net-zero dates are accelerated – with NZ CO2 pre-2050, NZ GHGs ~2060

So in this new work, we provide a NEW global scenario to guide climate action. This scenario

✅ Starts from current emissions levels
✅ Tries to minimise overshoot
✅ Does so by focusing on things that actually WORK (renewables + electricity), rather than techno-boondoggles (CCS)

No, I’m convinced that we need to double down on 1.5ºC, not give up on it. But how do we do that?

One problem is the scenarios we’re using to guide action are fast becoming outdated. The last IPCC 1.5ºC scenarios assume emissions fell 25% by 2025, and >40% by 2030. We are WAY off track for this.

Some would say that 1.5ºC is a radical position, and that 2ºC would be a more pragmatic target.

Pragmatic for whom?

Not for small islands. Not for vulnerable ecosystems. Not for the global poor on the frontlines of the crisis.

To accept a world above 1.5ºC is to accept a radically altered world.

Does this mean we should give up on 1.5ºC?

No – 1.5ºC endures as a legal and ethical imperative as we approach, meet and potentially exceed 1.5ºC. See @joerirogelj.bsky.social's great piece on this: bsky.app/profile/joer...

In recent years optimism about 1.5ºC has been hard to find. Temperatures have been breaking records, and we’re currently rocketing forwards 1.5ºC warming at break-neck pace.

Meanwhile, global emissions, rather than falling, are still marching upwards.
www.unep.org/resources/em...

🚨🚨🚨 NEW REPORT ALERT 🚨🚨🚨
@climateanalytics.org has a new report out today that I’m really excited about. It’s all about 1.5ºC...

▶️ Is overshooting 1.5ºC inevitable?
▶️ Can we still get temperatures back below 1.5ºC?
▶️ If so, how?

If you’re interested in our findings, buckle up for a mega thread...

Rescuing 1.5°C: new evidence on the highest possible ambition to… This study shows that, even after years of insufficient action, the world can still return to well below 1.5°C of warming this century if countries pursue the “highest possible ambition” in climate ac...

After years of political failure, the world can still rescue 1.5°C – if countries pursue the “highest possible ambition”, starting now.

New report from Climate Analytics and @pik-potsdam.bsky.social shows how it’s possible.

Read more: climateanalytics.org/publications...

A bleak dystopia where Sharia law predominates, while economic and cultural divisions mean that the different communities live parallel, segregated lives.

Oh, wait, that’s Dubai …

BBC news article about chocolate bars that can no longer be called chocolate but instead chocolate flavour because of increased cocoa prices due to climate change

If you like a lot of chocolate on your biscuit join @greenpeaceuk.bsky.social

Screenshot of a page from the Explanation of Intended Effect document from the Port Kembla Land Transformation project. There is a paragraph of text relating to “Local Contributions” and then a URL at the end where they’ve not taken off the UTM source, in this case ChatGPT.

Yeah I dunno, maybe if I was creating a government document I might hide the fact I’d used ChatGPT to find the information.

WATCH: #ProductionGap launch!

Find out if the production gap to 1.5°C has shifted since governments committed to transition away from fossil fuels at COP28.

🎤 Keynote: Mary Robinson

📅 22 Sept | ⌚ 15:30 CEST / 09:30 EDT
🔗 Register: www.eventbrite.se/e/production...

@neilgrant.bsky.social

Thanks for sharing Dave. Some stuff I agree with here, but I think it's odd to be arguing against the removal of green levies from industry... AFAIK the Gov is not scrapping the levies, but funding them from elsewhere (general taxation?). Making electricity cheaper for industry is key I would say!

When we shift to active travel, we don't just reduce the emissions from our trips: we're more likely to also change the frequency and duration (destination) of the trips...

The Telegraph has become the paper of Correct the Record

Even the "correct the record" is wrong! Electricity not energy hahahaha. So mad

Governments shouldn't rely forests to meet their emissions goals Some countries rely on forests and their carbon storage to deliver on their climate targets, a risky approach that could see fossil fuel emissions rise

I know this looks like climate nerd stuff but the stakes are actually massive for all of us:

accountability on fossil fuel elimination is being wrecked by dodgy math that allows the pretence that trees are re-absorbing the carbon we dig up from underground and move to the atmosphere