So no international trading of CDR ‘offsets’, and no international trading of biomass for BECCS, and no use of potential oceanic sinks? I’d sympathise with all these, but is this what you mean?
Exactly. @Oliver_Geden nails it. Most CDR needs national-level governance that's integrated with mitigation. The uncritical talk or need for global governance driven by unrealism if 1.5 scenarios. Focus on emissions cuts and build CDR into national net emissions policy https://twitter.com/Oliver_Geden/status/1189893486205689858 …pic.twitter.com/lyogLdepNL
-
-
-
If it were up to me, I would ban all project-based offsets. Thoughtful people persuaded me they were a bad idea in the mid-90's, and evidence and since then is only confirmed this view.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
CDR will need global governance. When we get near zero emissions, CDR will be sharply distinct from mitigation, it will need global governance, and it will make sense to call it climate intervention. Suggestion: postpone this conversation until emissions 1/3 of current.
Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
We must develop nuclear power, starting with SMRs to be dedicated to carbon extraction. We will not have enough clean power to do so otherwise. Also government sponsored and funded thorium reactors.
#GreenManhattanProjectHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.