Twitter | Search | |
Kevin Anderson
Professor of energy and climate change - interested in translating the science of climate change into carbon budgets, policy goals and mitigation options.
6,196
Tweets
634
Following
15,411
Followers
Tweets
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Peter Sheaf Aug 14
Extreme? 200 hr? One flight? Actually trains compare pretty favourably to planes up to certain distances depending on the speed of the train. The problem is that planes won't be zero-carbon anytime soon. So what's your proposed solution to reducing the number of flights taken?
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Aug 15
There’s no guarantee (or even half-hearted assurance) the offsetting will work over any reasonable period, but there is a 100% guarantee that emissions from the activity being ‘offset’ will be contributing to a changing climate immediately & over the coming decades/centuries.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
syd🌹🌱 Aug 14
The severe irony of establishment politicians imputing a ‘lack of pragmatism’ to democratic socialism while simultaneously upholding a system that is dangerously close to dismantling civilization itself is not unnoted.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Aug 14
Replying to @GeolJR
Not sure anyone was suggesting we should all do this. But perhaps it helps academics (& other self important types) consider slower & lower CO2 travel to those ‘essential’ meetings. Or perhaps even question whether their/our pearls of wisdom are worth the CO2 emissions?
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Peter Kalmus Aug 13
Sorry, I don't intend to be condescending. However, it does seem that you're presenting the psychology I'm discussing. Maybe we will invent scaleable NETs. That would be great! But they seem unlikely, and a mistake to bet on. Wanting or needing something doesn't make it so.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Aug 13
Nor have I. But I’ve met many who advocate much lower rates of mitigation now, than would be necessary without NETs. I’d go as far as to say this is the norm amongst climate academics & many NGOs.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Aug 13
... delivering Paris demands radical changes to how us higher emitters live our lives. He’s one fine example that delivers now & does not rely on a belief in future tech to absolve today’s hi-emissions.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Aug 13
IAMs with huge NETs have & still do dominate the 1.5-2°C mitigation agenda, tho theres now some disquiet about both their politically expedient assumptions & CGE core. We’re not in a time of equilibrium & convenient modelling cannot substitute for questions of political economy.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Aug 13
They’ve already had a long history of keeping many climate scientists either ignorant or quiet about the scale of non-NETs mitigation. If they’d been a virtually unanimous call for deep & radical mitigation, we may not be where we are today.Instead NETs have softened the message.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Aug 13
The UK govt policy, guided by , is already reliant on NETs to balance its mitigation agenda with its support for the ongoing expansion of aviation & the development of shale gas. This fraudulent balance demonstrates how NETs are already undermining mitigation today.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Aug 13
As I understand it, your saying that if NETs don’t work at huge planetary level we’ve had it? I still think 2°C is possible without NETs - just, but it would require a revolution in mitigation which now would mean a revolution in the social structure/hierarchy of our society.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Aug 13
Because many of the academics & policy-makers people are relying on to analyse & introduce policies for cutting CO2 are already relying on highly speculative negative emission technologies (or agreeing with NETs thro their silence) so as to avoid polically challenging mitigation.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
JesseJenkins Aug 9
"“We are living in a world that is not just warmer than it used to be. We haven’t reached a new normal,” Dr. Swain cautioned. “This isn’t a plateau.”
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Aug 13
“ASAP” hides a lot. Does it mean us wealthy types move to smaller properties, dramatically curtail our flying & consumption of goods, embrace much higher tax hypothicated to low-CO2 energy & efficiency etc? I get no sense of this.Our behaviour suggests we prefer NETs over action.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Hugh Hunt Aug 12
... and this has to be "now", not some convenient time in the future. The clock is ticking ever faster.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson Aug 13
Let’s conduct R&D on all these & where sustainable actually but them into practice. But let’s mitigate our own & our country’s CO2 as if they will not work at scale.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Glen Peters Aug 13
It is always a good reminder to see how the global average temperature has changed over the last 150 years...
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
James Dyke Aug 12
Well, if more than 1% knew what they were, what was really involved, perhaps more people would want to critically evaluate this key justification for continued emissions...
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Peter Kalmus Aug 12
Gather round for a thread on Slow Travel. Specifically, the slow travel I did with my family this summer. (aka vacation slideshow) 6 minutes by plane = 1 hour by car = 1 day by bike = 1 week by foot in the mountains. Roughly. But oh, the adventure, by foot in the mountains.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Peter Kalmus Aug 12
Yes, but unfortunately negative emissions at that scale are pure science fiction. Perhaps it's counterproductive to talk about them when they don't exist... and seem unlikely to ever exist. They provide a key psych/social justification for continued emissions.
Reply Retweet Like