New Nature paper out today states very clearly what is needed if governments are serious about limiting global heating to 1.5C, as agreed at Paris. Spoiler: No new fossil fuelled infrastructure, anywhere, ever. From now on. Read thread for details...
New paper in by , , and others. Existing infrastructure enough to take us over 1.5 C but not 2 C targets. #climate #carbon #CO2 #energy
A new paper which came out in Nature suggests that the amount of fossil fuel infrastructure in the world currently, if run until the end of its life, will take us over the 1.5C Paris target.
Labor just voted in the Senate to support the Adani coal mine. 2 days since a major new research showing we can't build *any* new fossil fuel infrastructure if we want to keep warming below 1.5°c. Is Labor denying the science? Or do they just not care?
Feels like this paper saying we need to stop new fossil fuel development and shut down a bunch of power plants, the opposite of American energy policy and the whole business model of the most powerful industry on earth, should be getting some more coverage
Being serious about limiting warming to safe levels for future generations (#FridaysForFuture) means a strategic shutdown of current #coal infrastructure instead of an expansion. (2/2)
New paper in Nature: to limit warming to 1.5°C we need to retire ALL existing and planned fossil fuel power plants #auspol #climateemergency
In layman's terms, we do not have the carbon budget left to build a single new gas pipeline, oil port, highway or coal-fired power plant, anywhere. "little or no additional CO2-emitting infrastructure can be commissioned"
"Committed emissions from existing and proposed energy infrastructure (about 846 Gt CO2) thus represent more than the entire carbon budget [for] 1.5 °C ... (420–580 Gt CO2), and perhaps two-thirds of the budget for 2 °C (1,170–1,500 Gt CO2)"
Brown coal fails constantly and often at the worst times, gas is expensive and increasing supply has made it more so, and renewables are the cheapest form of new generation. And then there's climate change.
Almost out of space in the atmosphere. No more emitting infrastructure
The plan says it would "ban new fossil fuel infrastructure after 2025” — which is exciting, if insufficient. Research from suggests we cannot build any new fossil fuel infrastructure starting TODAY to stay within a 1.5C warming target. 5/
Existing & planned fossil-fuel energy infrastructure, if used as designed, will blow through the world's carbon budget. We need to retire existing fossil fuel plants early and stop building new ones.
You've seen this paper, right, Tong et al 2019, where we've already burnt through our 1.5C carbon budget if we build and operate all planned power and industry?
The published a controversial article by Jonathan Franzen citing our paper. Our paper discussed the 1.5 C target, not the 'threshold of catastrophe'. #climate #energy
The science is clear on this issue. EXISTING energy infrastructure will push us past 1.5C of global heating. Expansion is out of the question, if we want a habitable planet. We need to start shutting it down. Starting with much of our airport capacity.
The “sustainable” use for #fossilfuels = rapidly phase them out. There’s no more carbon budget for Arctic drilling. A recent study showed that *existing* fossil infrastructure has to close early to limit warming to 1.5 degrees & avoid worst climate risks
A chat with Ailsa Chang about 's new paper () on #CommittedEmissions and the inertia of fossil fuel infrastructure:
Bad news: Committed emissions exceed 1.5 °C climate target ⁦
Thanks. 👍 I really appreciate that makes a point to link to the studies it writes about.
Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C climate target
Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C climate target via
How's this for an understated headline? "Jeopardize" is also longer than "nix."
Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C climate target | Nature