Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
1. Where have we been in the last century? We have been busy burning coal, oil, gas, and cutting down forests. Emissions have grown except for short economic downturns or spikes in deforestation (fires).pic.twitter.com/3RnY7D34u9
2. Where do we want to go? For 1.5°C we need CO₂ emissions to go down much faster than we went up. CO₂ emissions down 50% in a decade, zero by 2050, negative thereafter. We have to start remove CO₂ now, to reach the necessary scale at the end of the century.pic.twitter.com/DyIzkD6bG6
3. 2°C used to be the benchmark, superseded by 1.5°C. But, 2°C is no walk in the park. CO₂ emissions down by 25% by 2030, zero in the 2070's, negative thereafter.pic.twitter.com/pDqEXGPJKV
4. Over the last 50 years CO₂ emissions have grown, except during economic downturns, and despite growing climate policies. Why? It is the economy stupid... Energy & climate policies have to overcome growth in economic activity, energy use, & emissions.pic.twitter.com/YvybhQEjLn
5. Oil & gas have sustained & uninterrupted growth in the last decades. The ups & downs in global emissions are driven by coal, & that largely by the economy in China (with some help from some friends, like coal to gas in the USA).pic.twitter.com/v5TRfUAxk5
6. In energy terms, non-fossil sources are growing, particularly solar & wind (other renewables). That growth is not yet sufficient to overcome growth in fossil fuel use. It is not enough for policies to support renewables, also need policies to reduce fossil fuel use...pic.twitter.com/4eSAOrOjQQ
7. Keeping below 1.5°C is no easy task. There are many reasons to not like negative emissions (green), but some level is likely necessary if we can't get global emissions to zero in a matter of 20 years or so. Even with negative emissions, extreme short-term reductions needed!pic.twitter.com/cBMYjFyHbI
8. The electricity sector provides most negative emissions (through Bioenergy with CCS), also the shift from deforestation to afforestation is an important source of negative emissions. Industry gets close to zero, but transport emissions linger towards the end of the century.pic.twitter.com/MVk1sTxKN8
9. There are many different ways to 1.5°C, no pathway is unique, but the previous tweet shows the general characteristics (average) of 1.5°C scenarios with no or low temperature overshoot.
10. The presence was in the presence of royalty, so I had to pull out my best #ClimateStripes for the occasion. Thanks @Ed_Hawkins...
Feel free to download the presentation, here...
https://www.slideshare.net/GlenPeters_CICERO/can-we-keep-global-warming-well-below-2c …pic.twitter.com/1nXby7FKRr
Dear Glen, do we have any good graphs of CO₂e? What I'm really looking for is the new 1.5°C CO₂e budget (post SR1.5) SR1.5 said 400Gt 1.5°C CO₂ budget, but what would that be for CO₂e? THANKS!
The budgets are always CO2 only, but they allow for nonCO2. The CO2 emissions will lead to 1.2C warming, say, and the nonCO2 will be therefore about 0.3C warming. However, the nonCO2 is highly scenario dependent, which explains why each scenarios in the tweet has different CO2.pic.twitter.com/3V5FWLkSzs
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
