We have tried to stay within feasibility limits on CDR & avoid mad reliance on tree-planting. But this is still a lot of CDR.

This CDR is not compensating for fossil fuels – which are phased out fully.

The choice of fossil phaseout OR removals was always a dumb one. It’s no longer a choice we have

3️⃣ Methane
Methane is a super pollutant, but it only hangs around in the atmosphere for around ~12 years. That means if we cut methane emissions, then within about a decade, the amount of methane in the air will start falling, and that will help bring temperatures down

1️⃣ Electricity ⚡
The HPA leans into electrification. Electricity is the future – it’s cheaper, it’s smarter, it’s just fundamentally better than continuing to burn stuff (which is sooooo last century). See @ember-energy.org's great work on this!

Two-thirds of demand comes from electricity by 2050

If we achieve that, then temperatures would be set to peak at ~1.7ºC – 0.2ºC above the Paris Agreement’s limit.

But by phasing out fossil fuels, cutting methane & scaling up removals, we can bring temperatures back below 1.5ºC pre-2100.

We can still rescue 1.5ºC!

Let’s dive in. First, emissions
❌ We can no longer halve emissions by 2030.
✅ But we can still cut them by ~20%, or 10 GtCO2e
🏃 Post 2030, we need to play catch-up with the IPCC scenarios to make up on lost time
🎯Net-zero dates are accelerated – with NZ CO2 pre-2050, NZ GHGs ~2060

In recent years optimism about 1.5ºC has been hard to find. Temperatures have been breaking records, and we’re currently rocketing forwards 1.5ºC warming at break-neck pace.

Meanwhile, global emissions, rather than falling, are still marching upwards.
www.unep.org/resources/em...

Anyone know why the UK Clean Power Plan has UK generation estimated at ~270 TWh in 2023 (see image), whereas other sources (e.g. Energy Institute) have it up at ~290 TWh in 2023 (see Ember link).

maybe @nicolasfulghum.bsky.social? I find the UK generation in the NESO 2030 scenarios quite low

yay come follow us x

Thanks for this Jarmo! Had a quick read - very interesting stuff. I was thinking about how this compares to the existing SDP -> here's what I could see on this (assuming global North is OECD + Russia)

Hi nerds of #EnergySky
Solar PV capacity factors in the IEA's Announced Pledges scenario grow in all regions...

Why do we think this is? It's probably a mix of
- Better addressing curtailment
- New tech (tracking PV vs. fixed tilt)
- Regional placement

Any thoughts on the relative role of each?

These renewables are gonna require $$$ right? Well, yes. But remember, climate action is not a COST, it’s an INVESTMENT. In cheaper energy, cleaner air, a liveable planet

That said, investment does need to scale up fast. We need $2 trillion a year from now until 2030 - twice current levels.

In terms of closing the capacity gap, the OECD has to take a lead. The OECD needs to triple capacity, but is forecast to only double.

They’re responsible for 50-60% of the gap in 2030. They also need to step up support for the transition in other regions, via $$$. Talking about that…

Most regions are not on track to achieve these scale-up rates. The one exception is Asia, which is *broadly* on track, driven by crazy growth in China and somewhat in India. But other Asian countries need to get on track also. And the coal pipeline in China and India is very very worrying!

But what about at the regional level? Here’s the key table:

➡️ In absolute terms, Asia and OECD dominate (80% of capacity additions). Why: they have 80% of the fossil fuel capacity that needs phasing out!

➡️ In relative terms, Africa and Middle East are big - as they’re scaling from a low base

First off, the global picture. We need to triple* renewables by 2030. The renewables pipeline is really hotting up, but we’re still not on track to hit this.

Under current policies, renewables will grow 2.5x by 2030, leaving a ~2TW gap to 1.5ºC.

*3.4x growth relative to 2022 levels actually 🤓