Sounds quite generous. Move the onset of aggressive mitigation to 2050 and drop the emissions vertically. You can graph it, but can it be done?
-
-
-
It should be pursued in any case, but strong emphasis should be on sooner rather than later. Policymakers salivate over any justification for delay.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Well, but if *aggressive* mitigation is not possible (which is probable), then also 1.5-2C is not possible (feasible).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
....that is thermonuclear world war III type of reduction in emissions
-
Answering to an old tweet but.. Yes, that is precisely the sort of drop it is. We won't be short of pretexts.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Isn't it the case that wildly optimistic graphs are dangerously misleading? We still don't have the tech for global scale BECCS or the courage to down scale aggressively. Exploring unrealistic paths might just fuel unfortunate delays in action now.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks for sharing your presentation with us! The @HoffmannCentre has also just published a new article on
#beccs by@ChathamRob &@RIJKing which you might find interesting:https://hoffmanncentre.chathamhouse.org/article/betting-on-beccs-exploring-land-based-negative-emissions-technologies/ …Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But at what cost? What has do be done in case of delays? What are the requirements? IPCC AR5 WG3 SPM informed about this using as metric the increase of mitigation costs.pic.twitter.com/v3jfNXdfl5
-
Yes, costs are higher, but will that worry a policy maker?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.