Thank you, Dave! Really appreciate you following along.

That's very generous. Yes, Our World in Data is a non-profit, and donations really mean a lot. I am biased, but my teammates really do great work, and I learn a lot from them. That also supports my writing elsewhere.

Here is the report from CREA too: energyandcleanair.org/publication/...

In high school, only 2 other girls in my year chose physics as their science subject. Most girls chose chem or biology. Climate obv involves chem, but probably more physics.

In uni, there were very few other women in engineering courses. Chem eng was more popular, but not many in civil, electrical

Thank you!

Less sure about climate science (probably because it’s quite physics-based, and of the 3 sciences that skews more male?)

The energy field has a strong focus on engineering and construction, which again, are more male-dominated.

I think this has been slowly changing.

At a few book events, I've been asked why individuals should care much about their own personal actions on climate when Taylor Swift flies around in her private jet all the time (this was at the height of her tour).

Funnily enough, she is the most-listened to artist among my audiobook listeners 😄

I remember looking at demographic data of my followers on Twitter/X a few years ago, and it was very male-skewed (80/20, if I remember rightly).

Interesting to see the differences for my audiobooks.

How are you not laughing the entire way?

Still I think the next first year of falling emissions outside of some crisis (e.g. COVID) is important to wave as a flag of “emissions are down, we can’t let them go back up again. Let‘s get a move on”

The first year of falling global emissions after the peak (whenever that is) will probably also be fairly small, and within the bounds of uncertainty in emission estimates.

So you‘d probably want multiple years of data to be confident.

I still think that is possible, but 🤷🏼‍♀️

I also agree with Glen that you’d only confidently know that it was the peak in 2028 or 2029 or something, if emissions had continued to fall multiple years in a row (+ signs that the decline is structural)

I took the historical data from here: www.iea.org/data-and-sta...

Notes say it is DC. 2024 figures roughly align with IEA’s “average additions to 2035 are 540 GW, which is similar to levels in 2024”

Agreed they will slow and eventually stop growing, but I am doubtful we are there now (at a global level).

The red line is how much solar PV has actually been added globally each year, up to 2024.

Black line represents the IEA's assumptions of how much solar will be added each year, to 2035, in its "Current Policies Scenario". Basically, solar has been growing strongly, but it assumes this growth stops.

It's worth reiterating that the IEA are quite explicit that this is not a "business-as-usual" scenario. They try to explain what it does and does not represent here: www.iea.org/commentaries...

Scenarios are useful for testing assumptions. The problem is that nuance is often lost in translation.