Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Glen Peters

@glenpeters.bsky.social

25K followers 290 following 1.8K posts

Energy, emissions, & climate CICERO Center for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway https://cicero.oslo.no/en/employees/glen-peters

cicero.oslo.no

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Pinned

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · Nov 13

📢Global Carbon Budget 2024📢

Despite some predicting a peak in global fossil CO2 emissions, we estimate growth of 0.8% [-0.3% to 1.9%] in 2024. Maybe a peak next year?

Is it all bad news, or can we find some good news?

essd.copernicus.org/preprints/es...

1/

21 150 350

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 2h

There is a lot of talk about a peak in Chinese fossil CO2 emissions.

Carbon Monitor already has estimated a decline in Chinese CO2 in 2024 (last year) of -0.44%.
carbonmonitor.org/variation

The Global Carbon Budget has a 0.7% increase in 2024.

Across two datasets, we don't know if up or down!

3 8 21

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 2d

"It is the model with the most scenarios that has the largest influence on 1.5°C scenario findings. Individual studies have only a small or negligible impact on most findings," says @idasogn.bsky.social

cicero.oslo.no/en/articles/...

2 4 16

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 3d

It is possible to make narratives where it makes sense. Maybe technology develops and we have scalable free fusion in 50 years, and so the overshoot part is easy. I just think it is more relevant to look at the consequences of 2.5C, then look at what is different going from 2.5 to 2.0C.

1 4

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 3d

Sure, a valid point. But the assumption is "urgent action doesn't happen now, but it will suddenly happen in 20 years". So we are irrational for the next 10-20 years, then suddenly, we are all rational. I think that future is rather unlikely. It is more likely we just have a warmer world.

2 2

Reposted by Glen Peters

Robbie Andrew @robbieandrew.bsky.social · 4d

My estimates of how much Norway's CO₂ emissions have been reduced as a result of EVs, PHEVs, and biofuels.
robbieandrew.github.io/EV/

Graph showing: Avoided emissions from passenger cars in Norway

14 36 120

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 4d

Yes, it is amazing. Tesla is quite established in Norway, they often have good deals and cut prices if sales drop, and have good charging infrastructure. Then they probably discount the extra baggage of the owner (if they even care)...

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 4d

Do you know how many people die each year from air pollution from coal power plants, even before we talk about climate?

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 4d

Actually, I made a thread on this. You will see on the C2 and C3 scenarios, there are some with delay. Often they are "don't do anything to 2025 or 2030, then go crazy on mitigation". This will also give you an idea of the mapping of current trends. bsky.app/profile/glen...

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · Apr 16

Just your regular reminder of where global CO2 emissions are tracking compared to scenarios that keep warming to below 1.5C in 2100, with "no or low overshoot" (maximum temperature around 1.6C).

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....

C1/

1 1

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 4d

I wonder how important this is for people buying Tesla's. If they were undecided between a Tesla and a non-Tesla, but then found the deal was so good with the Tesla?

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 4d

Yes, but there was criteria. They had to have emissions and trends within a certain range. So if you had a scenario with peak emissions in 2010, it would not be included, for example. So all scenarios would have been made from 2015 or later, in general.

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 4d

Nothing wrong with a conference, etc, I am just a little on the picky side.

4/4

1 3

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 4d

There is also this weird 1.5C aspect. The only way to 1.5C is with overshoot. But the people most focused on 1.5C are also those more sceptical that OS works, whether CCS/CDR will scale, etc. Which would imply 1.5C is deader than dead. But, no keep focussing on OS to keep 1.5C alive?

3/

2 2

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 4d

I guess this is a framing / priority type question. I would put the fine ruler over the time from now to peak, and not put a fine ruler over the decline phase. There are interesting science questions, for sure, but I am not sure they are the most important questions.

2/

1 4

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 4d

Yes. Which is all ok. But the conclusion is still the same. Urgent action. If OS works, then we need urgent action. If OS fails, then we need urgent action. If we have tipping points, limits on CDR, etc, etc, then we need urgent action.

1/

2 5