esavakkilainen

The GOP enacted civil service reform.

The GOP will destroy civil service reform.

The GOP is NOT the same party that it was. Keep this in mind when they claim Lincoln as their own

One hopes. But the Reform party for example already gets 2/3rds of its funding from foreign countries. And is frighteningly popular.

BREAKING: WELL, WELL, WELL! Newly unearthed footage shows Pete Hegseth saying EXACTLY what the six Democrats said in their video that prompted Trump and Hegseth to hysterically smear them as traitors!
You must refuse illegal orders.

That was a long thread. Two things

When we get to zero emissions, concentration declines bsky.app/profile/glen...

Plants love CO2, but they don't love changing T so much
bsky.app/profile/glen...

And see Figure 12, below, CO2 effect top, T effect bottom essd.copernicus.org/preprints/es...

South America and Africa are experiencing huge forest losses because of expanding population, agriculture and use of firewood.
AFAIK South-east Asia has turned from carbon losses to gains mainly because of China./2

To clarify; forests in EU and USA are a net sink of carbon as agriculture is shrinking. Canada and Russia have recently had huge natural carbon losses due to insects and fire. /1

Väestön ikääntymiseen ei ole varauduttu, vaikka se, jos mikä oli helppo ennustaa.

Miten Suomi ajautui tarkkikseksi? www.soininvaara.fi/2025/11/30/2...

Hey, you can't expect authorities to enforce existing laws (since 2010).
How would our society function if every law should be obeyed! #irony

Kyllä, jos lupaa 10% tuottoa, 5 % sijaan, niin rahaa löytyy. Kun aurinko- ja tuulivoimainvestoinneissa sähkön hinta riippuu kuoletuksidta, niin samalla myytävän sähkön hinta tuplaantuu.

The point I am trying to make i:
Why are we stuck in details and ask if the reductions in fossils are enough while
Many countries increse their fossil emissions by more than 3% per year.
IMHO we should start asking why they can act irresponsibly.

What I am trying to say is what Paris 2015 made clear:
We can't achieve reducing fossil CO2 emissions by only Annex I countries participating.
We need every country to do something. Even a bit.
Sadly the negelcted message from COP30 was that lots of countries did not even other bother with NDCs.

Correct
But you were asking; why even if EU reduces emissions at rather brisk pace the global emissions are not reducing.
I answered that about dozen entities increase more than 50 countries reduce.
I also answered that many countries increase their fossil CO2 at very high rate.
Your shift is 10%.

IMHO, these are the countries + aviation&marine which have so far been deaf to all calls to do something.
Whether one sees the countries that have increased their actual emissions to blame or the countries that increase their emissions the highest rate can be debated.
The increasers are winning./3

There is about 50 countries that have reduced fossil emissions since 2005. There is also about 50 countries that have increased fossil emissions more than 3 % per year.
Actually without the top increasers (>100 MtCO2e, below) we would already be on our way down.
. /2

Actually Danmark has reduced emissions quite a lot.
EU Edgar tells that almost -3% per year.
EU27 is much less -1.9%/a.
As always there are doers and trailers. We are achieving slowdown of emissions increase because of doers. Because of trailers this is not enough. /1

.. but decrease 2005-2024 in fossil co2 emissions is higher than average EU, higher than Germany, higher than USA.

Is there a climate policy in countries like Indonesia, Iran, India, ... e.g. Narendra Modi recently celebrated the significant breakthrough of 1 billion tonnes of domestic coal production .
Does this imply there is an actual intent to reduce CO2?

Has climate policy* worked?

There is an argument that CO2 per unit GDP has not accelerated in 50 years (top left).

This term is made of two componets:
* Energy per GDP (bottom left) which has not changed
* CO2 per Energy (top right), this is where the action is

1/

The Next COP Needs to Confront ‘Overshoot’ The Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is now all but impossible. Limiting — and eventually reversing — the damage will take some thought.

UN sec. gen. Antonio Guterres got it wrong when he said "Scientists tell us that a temporary overshoot above 1.5 degrees is now inevitable." Surpassing 1.5 may be inevitable, but the "temporary" part, not so much. My Q&A w/ an expert on why COPs need to confront this. heatmap.news/climate/cop-...

Here are the 10 countries with the largest changes in emissions in 2024 (the last year we have data).

Essentially Asian countries, plus Russia, Saudi Arabia, & Canada.

2/

If your premise is; "we must all agree", then this is expected.
Why would fossil fuel producing countries agree on; "we will stop producing fossil fuels and our economy collapses and I as a leader will face revolt."
We all know that this is what will happen, but #selfinterest

There is more in Paasikivi memoirs. e.g. The Swedes interced in negotiations. At least Paasikivi believed that war was coming. True, many other did not. There was a "fight" of who will get the Nickel from british mines in Nothernmost Finland; Germans or Soviets. It ended with Germans.

Hah!
Me modernit konsultit käytämme tekoälyä tekeään nimenomaan yrityspäättäjille ja politiikoille lähtevät raportit.
"Chat GTP: Write 30 page recommendation on climate change migitation"

Fingrid teknisenä toimijana on huippuluokkaa.
Oliko järkeä pakkomyyttää omistus? Kun omistajina oli suurimmat sähkön tuottajat, niin ei ollut järkeä nostaa maksuja, jotta maksettaisiin itse itselle. Nyt on institutionaalista omistajaa jota kiinnostaa? tehdä mahdollisimman paljon rahaa monopolilla.

Looking at the political speech from our EU MEPs today.
Expanding international commerce has destroyed EU economy, it has taken away the basic jobs that funded the well-being and now we must decrease support of developing countries.
So politically increasing climate support is not popular. #COP30

It is fall, it is dark and the wind does not blow (Dunkelflaute)
Finland with its >9000 MW of wind, >1500 MW of solar, >4300 MW nuclear and >3000 MW hydro is struggling to meet ~12 G of demand as are many other EU MS.
Note fossils now gone. Because of long time can not be met with batteries.

As @glenpeters.bsky.social says, we're way off target for any 1.5°C scenario.

To see how far off, each of the red/green bars represents the decrease in CO₂ emissions during COVID. Even if we achieved that from now until the end of 2030, we would still miss our 1.5°C target by a significant margin.

You can't at the same time say that state subsidies are OK, but EU can't use CBAM to limit fossil steel and cement.

Actually general voters in USA and EU are not happy that manufacturing moves away and there is unemployment.

Sure there is need of aid and encouragement of growth in developing.

The big political problem is that there are four groups of developing countries:
- very small, whose CO2-emissions actually don't matter in frame of 2050 goal
- fast growing, power hungry, fossil clinging (over 200% growth of CO2)
- two big uns (China, India)
- the rest
so not a single entity

Another way of looking at CBAM is to ask; why didn't you do anything since Kyoto? You can't epect to sell goods to EU made using fossils forever!