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.
5,356
Tweets
556
Following
14,274
Followers
Tweets
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Kevin Anderson Apr 14
I don’t think 1.5°C is really possible. The only ‘theoretical’ chance as I see it is that [1] we genuinely mitigate for a good chance of 2°C (i.e without reliance on NETs) & [2] that NETs do work at huge planetary scale. But to date we’re choosing to rely on NETs even for 2°C.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Ian Dowson May 23
To transform the system, pricing/rebates are no good imho. Need caebon rationing that'll localise economies, hard wire in reductions based on science & equity thus protect/benefit the poor. See
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Glen Peters May 23
There seems to be a lot of interest in moral hazards at . A problem is everyone seems to define "moral hazard" differently. With , we defined in reference to the expected "optimal" future pathway with BECCS "at scale".
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson May 23
Replying to @WallaNWalla @fardos
Aren’t us hi-emitters exactly the ones who are can afford the tax, just as we can afford the aggregate price of all the energy we consume. So a carbon price high enough to impact our behaviour significantly will completely stuff many poorer groups (unless its deeply progressive)?
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Barry McMullin May 22
Thanks to and for inspiration! (And if you're actually here at today, do come say hello to me at poster board 25 or catch my talk in session 4B...)
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Petra Bijsterveld May 20
Very true. But all credit to my employer who let me go on the train to a conference in Rome. I had to guide the travel service a bit, but in the end they did a great job 👍
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Glen Peters May 22
Anders Lyngfelt argues in his keynote at that negative emissions are both a dangerous game & necessary to meet our climate goals. It is really a question of scale & framing. See my comment with which started a debate in Sweden:
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson May 22
It’s an entropy issue; Norway’s organised welfare destroys others welfare thro the climate change caused by the oil they sell. More disturbing still, they set up their ‘sovereign death fund’ the same year the first IPCC report was published.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
艾比利 May 22
Replying to @fardos @KevinClimate
Carbon pricing idea is perfectly suited for more delay.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Andrew Farrell May 22
"...numbers dont warrant it" -- Really? That's ignoring the influence this behavior has on others.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson May 22
1) additional to what, certainly not mitigation as we’re doing virtually nothing, (inc. UK, Denmark, Sweden etc once planes,ships,imports/exports factored in). 2) everyone & many countries/sectors claims their CO2 is too small to matter. Nonsense mathematically & symbolically.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Aarne Granlund May 22
I was following this today and did not pick up research on lifestyle change?
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Aarne Granlund May 22
Don't forget the role of behaviour change in "We have to transform our diets, mobility systems, energy production and conspicuous consumption within a decade to limit risks of profound magnitude.”
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Climate Policy May 22
Following ’s recent landmark deal, what share of the global CO2 budget should be allocated to international ? See new paper by Michael Traut
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
William Lamb May 22
Is geoengineering? No, but ethical issues abound: moral hazard, a risky bet, and hubris. See our review here:
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson May 22
Using the pinnacle of human hi-CO2 achievement (jet engines) to travel to meetings to discuss highly speculative negative emission technologies illustrates the depths to which we’re prepared to plummet to avoid real mitigation. We’re actively choosing to lock in failure!
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Angel Goñi Moreno May 18
I made a little sketch on how the community aims at getting into the low-carbon conferencing path. We'll work on these 5 steps towards the ALIFE 2019 conference at Newcastle. Did I missed anything? Suggestions welcome!
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson retweeted
Angel Goñi Moreno May 18
That's a good point: one person per research lab/group. There is no need for the whole lab going to the same conference!
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson May 18
Replying to @KevinSLeahy
Thanks for this, hard to know whether to laugh or cry; tho’ I’m less perturbed by such “triumphant denialism” than I am by the “predatory delay” of those sectors, policy makers, scientists etc who use a utopian blend of future tech & taxes to avoid challenging action today.
Reply Retweet Like
Kevin Anderson May 17
I say again, in the absence of a clear definition of what we mean by the “carbon problem”, as you call it, all responses are little more than well meant nebulous arm waving.The question/s establish the boundaries of the answers; boundaries pivotal to informing reasoned responses.
Reply Retweet Like