Twitter | Search | |
Damian Kahya
Head of journalism at Greenpeace UK, editor , DM's are open
7,514
Tweets
2,322
Following
4,019
Followers
Tweets
Damian Kahya 9h
I really wish we lived in a world where this made sense as a front page
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya retweeted
Matthew d'Ancona Jun 15
Replying to @MatthewdAncona
But it won’t last. Playtime will be over soon. No more froth and nonsense: Number Ten can be an awfully lonely place when you’re not up to scratch. All eyes on you, Boris. Greetings from all of us in the HDU. /ENDS
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 16
Colour choice here arguably not ideal
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 15
At the end of my road a community project has thinned down an overgrown patch of woodland and created a nature trail full of wildflowers, ponds, bat boxes and bees. It's amazing. North end of the parkland walk for London locals.
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 14
Well this is going well.
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 12
Totally agree about not ruling out and R&D, but as CCS crops up increasingly in oil company climate forecasts allowing ongoing exploration it risks being used as a universal get of jail free card. I guess I think some counter on that is important.
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 12
Replying to @bradplumer
I'm assuming the Co2 cost excludes storage but... does the capture cost include the cost of fuel and/or the cost of splitting the oxygen first? Is power generated in this process or is the only output the hydrogen? Don't you wish they'd just publish something!
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 12
The rise and rise of pesticides carry similar risks to fossil fuels and it is happening nowhere more than in Bolsonaro's Brazil where one new pesticide product is being authorised every day.
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 12
Replying to @James_BG
Other models, not tied to power generation, seem to depend for their economic viability on the production of liquid or other fuel which obviously isn't CCUS it's just low-carbon fuel. BUT. I may be out of date, have you seen work on the economic side which persuades you?
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 12
Replying to @James_BG
There is no easily replicable at scale commercial model of CCUS for power, using it combines the kinds of capital costs you get with nuclear (to ensure something is stored securely, forever) AND variable fuel costs AND efficiency penalties
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 12
Replying to @James_BG
Hi James, as you know, I don't speak for Greenpeace, let alone Dutch Greenpeace, but having spent more time than is healthy on this in my life so far, I'd say if you are looking at a CCUS pathway you are looking at a big overshoot followed by pull-back, which is far from ideal
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya retweeted
Damian Kahya Jun 11
Replying to @damiankahya
Some now argue this shows the UK isn't the problem instead we should keep pace with efforts to reduce emissions elsewhere. This twisted playground logic assumes catastrophe is ok, if it's not our fault. That success is less important than fairness. Two things on that.
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya retweeted
Leo Hickman Jun 11
Replying to @damiankahya
Third. It can easily be argued that the UK has a moral duty to be among those leading the way due to historic emissions...
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 11
Weird thing. Yesterday an account appeared claiming to be a 'grassroots' campaign against the BBC. It had 13 followers. Then. Today.
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 11
Replying to @damiankahya
Second. The industries driving rising emissions (plastics, construction, heating, petrol, meat) are the same around the world. Change how our economy works here and it gets MUCH easier for emissions to fall elsewhere. But there will be at time-lag, so that can't happen too fast
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 11
Replying to @damiankahya
First. The reality is the more emissions rise the harder and faster countries committed to action need to cut to keep things on a level. So, for the UK, it may be wildly optimistic to assume that reaching net zero by 2050, say, will be close to enough.
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 11
Replying to @damiankahya
Some now argue this shows the UK isn't the problem instead we should keep pace with efforts to reduce emissions elsewhere. This twisted playground logic assumes catastrophe is ok, if it's not our fault. That success is less important than fairness. Two things on that.
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 11
Replying to @damiankahya
The increase in energy use was driven in large part by three things. More heating & cooling (thank you extreme weather), more steel from China and more oil used to make... Plastics.
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 11
Replying to @damiankahya
Emissions rose because we used much more energy, especially, the US, China and India used more energy - but that doesn't make it someone else's problem.
Reply Retweet Like
Damian Kahya Jun 11
Last year global emissions ROSE at their fastest rate for 8 years. Humanity, I think we need to have a meeting. (Angry thread warning)
Reply Retweet Like