Rust Never Sleeps / George Morrison🇨🇦
@rustneversleeps.bsky.social
Investment pro here for
• climate science, economics, solutions, policy, investment, impacts
• energy transition
• economics
Big on domain experts/expertise, abundance, potential.
*V* anti- fake experts, poseurs, snark, *esp.* climate-related.
• climate science, economics, solutions, policy, investment, impacts
• energy transition
• economics
Big on domain experts/expertise, abundance, potential.
*V* anti- fake experts, poseurs, snark, *esp.* climate-related.
simply "anti-emissions" or "anti-mitigation" policy or suggesting that aggressively reducing emissions can only "screw up your economy" is a disservice to and misrepresentation of the research.
Disappointing!
8/8
Disappointing!
8/8
January 30, 2026 at 5:45 PM
simply "anti-emissions" or "anti-mitigation" policy or suggesting that aggressively reducing emissions can only "screw up your economy" is a disservice to and misrepresentation of the research.
Disappointing!
8/8
Disappointing!
8/8
... honest about these trade-offs to build resilient pathways.
Burgess et al. view mitigation and adaptation as complementary: one stabilizes the long-term, while the other protects lives today. Seemingly characterizing their call for prudent, pro-development policy as...
7/8
Burgess et al. view mitigation and adaptation as complementary: one stabilizes the long-term, while the other protects lives today. Seemingly characterizing their call for prudent, pro-development policy as...
7/8
January 30, 2026 at 5:45 PM
... honest about these trade-offs to build resilient pathways.
Burgess et al. view mitigation and adaptation as complementary: one stabilizes the long-term, while the other protects lives today. Seemingly characterizing their call for prudent, pro-development policy as...
7/8
Burgess et al. view mitigation and adaptation as complementary: one stabilizes the long-term, while the other protects lives today. Seemingly characterizing their call for prudent, pro-development policy as...
7/8
... can increase the risk of hunger by 80–280 million—an impact that can exceed direct climate damage in the near term.
Burgess points to the 2021 Sri Lankan fertilizer ban as a real-world example of well-intentioned "green" policy causing an economic and humanitarian collapse. We have to be..
6/8
Burgess points to the 2021 Sri Lankan fertilizer ban as a real-world example of well-intentioned "green" policy causing an economic and humanitarian collapse. We have to be..
6/8
January 30, 2026 at 5:45 PM
... can increase the risk of hunger by 80–280 million—an impact that can exceed direct climate damage in the near term.
Burgess points to the 2021 Sri Lankan fertilizer ban as a real-world example of well-intentioned "green" policy causing an economic and humanitarian collapse. We have to be..
6/8
Burgess points to the 2021 Sri Lankan fertilizer ban as a real-world example of well-intentioned "green" policy causing an economic and humanitarian collapse. We have to be..
6/8
If a policy halts that growth, it removes their primary defense against climate impacts.
This isn't a fringe view. E.g.: The IPCC AR6 WGII (Ch 5), led by Toshihiro Hasegawa, warns that poorly considered mitigation (like uniform global carbon taxes in their example)...
5/8
This isn't a fringe view. E.g.: The IPCC AR6 WGII (Ch 5), led by Toshihiro Hasegawa, warns that poorly considered mitigation (like uniform global carbon taxes in their example)...
5/8
January 30, 2026 at 5:45 PM
If a policy halts that growth, it removes their primary defense against climate impacts.
This isn't a fringe view. E.g.: The IPCC AR6 WGII (Ch 5), led by Toshihiro Hasegawa, warns that poorly considered mitigation (like uniform global carbon taxes in their example)...
5/8
This isn't a fringe view. E.g.: The IPCC AR6 WGII (Ch 5), led by Toshihiro Hasegawa, warns that poorly considered mitigation (like uniform global carbon taxes in their example)...
5/8
"... to fall behind in the global clean tech race, not to mention leaving near-term economic benefits on the table."
The "screw up" quote is a *warning* about uncoordinated, costly policies that ignore a vital reality: for the world's poor, econ development is the most powerful form of adaptation.
The "screw up" quote is a *warning* about uncoordinated, costly policies that ignore a vital reality: for the world's poor, econ development is the most powerful form of adaptation.
January 30, 2026 at 5:45 PM
"... to fall behind in the global clean tech race, not to mention leaving near-term economic benefits on the table."
The "screw up" quote is a *warning* about uncoordinated, costly policies that ignore a vital reality: for the world's poor, econ development is the most powerful form of adaptation.
The "screw up" quote is a *warning* about uncoordinated, costly policies that ignore a vital reality: for the world's poor, econ development is the most powerful form of adaptation.
"Governments [...] should be full-steam ahead on developing and deploying economically beneficial mitigation solutions (cheap renewables, efficiency improvements, EVs, etc.). They should make big R&D investments to find more beneficial solutions. Otherwise, they risk allowing their countries
3/8
3/8
January 30, 2026 at 5:45 PM
"Governments [...] should be full-steam ahead on developing and deploying economically beneficial mitigation solutions (cheap renewables, efficiency improvements, EVs, etc.). They should make big R&D investments to find more beneficial solutions. Otherwise, they risk allowing their countries
3/8
3/8
The authors are *NOT* saying climate policy necessarily harms the economy.
*IN FACT*, they explicitly argue *FOR* being "full-steam ahead" on economically beneficial mitigation like cheap renewables and EVs, seeing them as a "race to the top" for global leadership.
2/8
*IN FACT*, they explicitly argue *FOR* being "full-steam ahead" on economically beneficial mitigation like cheap renewables and EVs, seeing them as a "race to the top" for global leadership.
2/8
January 30, 2026 at 5:45 PM
The authors are *NOT* saying climate policy necessarily harms the economy.
*IN FACT*, they explicitly argue *FOR* being "full-steam ahead" on economically beneficial mitigation like cheap renewables and EVs, seeing them as a "race to the top" for global leadership.
2/8
*IN FACT*, they explicitly argue *FOR* being "full-steam ahead" on economically beneficial mitigation like cheap renewables and EVs, seeing them as a "race to the top" for global leadership.
2/8
Glen, with respect, your framing above is a material misrepresentation of the @matthewgburgess.bsky.social et al. preprint, and the Substack post. The snippet you quoted is used to illustrate a specific feedback loop, not to argue against reducing emissions.
1/8
1/8
January 30, 2026 at 5:45 PM
Glen, with respect, your framing above is a material misrepresentation of the @matthewgburgess.bsky.social et al. preprint, and the Substack post. The snippet you quoted is used to illustrate a specific feedback loop, not to argue against reducing emissions.
1/8
1/8
... most interesting to your readers (and you! (and me!))! - but I just thought that the way you characterized the paper in these two aspects was maybe not as fair a reading as it could have been. I think - despite your overall enthusiasm - some readers might get a misrepresentation.
January 27, 2026 at 4:51 PM
... most interesting to your readers (and you! (and me!))! - but I just thought that the way you characterized the paper in these two aspects was maybe not as fair a reading as it could have been. I think - despite your overall enthusiasm - some readers might get a misrepresentation.
The example they use of the perspective from a "Louisiana" point-of-view is instructive.
Anyway, summing up, I realize that we are both fans of the paper, and you start your thread on that note.
But your thread seems to mostly highlight your areas of disagreement - and fair enough!, it's what's...
Anyway, summing up, I realize that we are both fans of the paper, and you start your thread on that note.
But your thread seems to mostly highlight your areas of disagreement - and fair enough!, it's what's...
January 27, 2026 at 4:48 PM
The example they use of the perspective from a "Louisiana" point-of-view is instructive.
Anyway, summing up, I realize that we are both fans of the paper, and you start your thread on that note.
But your thread seems to mostly highlight your areas of disagreement - and fair enough!, it's what's...
Anyway, summing up, I realize that we are both fans of the paper, and you start your thread on that note.
But your thread seems to mostly highlight your areas of disagreement - and fair enough!, it's what's...
... irrespective of (additionally) mitigation spending, it also highlights the different dynamics of the payback structure.
[On the latter, I would recommend this IPCC-cited paper by one of the same co-authors of the Burgess 2026 paper iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...
[On the latter, I would recommend this IPCC-cited paper by one of the same co-authors of the Burgess 2026 paper iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...
January 27, 2026 at 4:44 PM
... irrespective of (additionally) mitigation spending, it also highlights the different dynamics of the payback structure.
[On the latter, I would recommend this IPCC-cited paper by one of the same co-authors of the Burgess 2026 paper iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...
[On the latter, I would recommend this IPCC-cited paper by one of the same co-authors of the Burgess 2026 paper iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...
... barely distinguishable between aggressive emissions mitigation and business-as-usual for 20 to 30 years or more. Regional precipitation doesn't demonstrate such differences until late this century.
Not only does this further emphasize the need for significant adaptation spending largely...
Not only does this further emphasize the need for significant adaptation spending largely...
January 27, 2026 at 4:44 PM
... barely distinguishable between aggressive emissions mitigation and business-as-usual for 20 to 30 years or more. Regional precipitation doesn't demonstrate such differences until late this century.
Not only does this further emphasize the need for significant adaptation spending largely...
Not only does this further emphasize the need for significant adaptation spending largely...
especially compared to investment paybacks for adaptation spending. Which, as the authors note, changes the political economy of local spending decisions, etc.
For instance, as the IPCC AR6 WGI makes clear in FAQ's 4.1 and 4.2, the differential benefit along many *climate* impact vectors will be...
For instance, as the IPCC AR6 WGI makes clear in FAQ's 4.1 and 4.2, the differential benefit along many *climate* impact vectors will be...
January 27, 2026 at 4:44 PM
especially compared to investment paybacks for adaptation spending. Which, as the authors note, changes the political economy of local spending decisions, etc.
For instance, as the IPCC AR6 WGI makes clear in FAQ's 4.1 and 4.2, the differential benefit along many *climate* impact vectors will be...
For instance, as the IPCC AR6 WGI makes clear in FAQ's 4.1 and 4.2, the differential benefit along many *climate* impact vectors will be...
you use👇 regarding the health benefits of eliminating particulate pollution from combustion is a mitigation benefit that has almost immediate benefit (and a lot of it is local as well).
But much of the climate benefits from mitigation are quite distant in time and place...
bsky.app/profile/auke...
But much of the climate benefits from mitigation are quite distant in time and place...
bsky.app/profile/auke...
Apart from that: our obsession with burning fuel also causes 8 million air pollution deaths per year, comparable to COVID but year after year for centuries.
www.bmj.com/content/383/...
www.bmj.com/content/383/...
Air pollution deaths attributable to fossil fuels: observational and modelling study
Objectives To estimate all cause and cause specific deaths that are attributable to fossil fuel related air pollution and to assess potential health benefits from policies that replace fossil fuels wi...
www.bmj.com
January 27, 2026 at 4:44 PM
you use👇 regarding the health benefits of eliminating particulate pollution from combustion is a mitigation benefit that has almost immediate benefit (and a lot of it is local as well).
But much of the climate benefits from mitigation are quite distant in time and place...
bsky.app/profile/auke...
But much of the climate benefits from mitigation are quite distant in time and place...
bsky.app/profile/auke...
... benefits simply from the cost-savings from cleantech in many use cases. There is no argument here about fostering this on this basis alone and it is exactly what the authors do!
The issue with benefits in the paper comes down timeframes and placeframes for realizing these benefits.
The example
The issue with benefits in the paper comes down timeframes and placeframes for realizing these benefits.
The example
January 27, 2026 at 4:44 PM
... benefits simply from the cost-savings from cleantech in many use cases. There is no argument here about fostering this on this basis alone and it is exactly what the authors do!
The issue with benefits in the paper comes down timeframes and placeframes for realizing these benefits.
The example
The issue with benefits in the paper comes down timeframes and placeframes for realizing these benefits.
The example
... mitigation. In fact, quite the opposite from what I know of the authors.
The second issue is the issue of timelines (and place-basedness) of the benefits of investments in mitigation and adaptation respectively.
As you point out - and as we have just discussed - there are already potential...
The second issue is the issue of timelines (and place-basedness) of the benefits of investments in mitigation and adaptation respectively.
As you point out - and as we have just discussed - there are already potential...
January 27, 2026 at 4:44 PM
... mitigation. In fact, quite the opposite from what I know of the authors.
The second issue is the issue of timelines (and place-basedness) of the benefits of investments in mitigation and adaptation respectively.
As you point out - and as we have just discussed - there are already potential...
The second issue is the issue of timelines (and place-basedness) of the benefits of investments in mitigation and adaptation respectively.
As you point out - and as we have just discussed - there are already potential...
... ghg's for some time and so our requirement for significant adaptation investment to deal with current and inevitably worsening climate impacts exists alongside that.
So I don't think it is fair to characterize them as unaware or unenthusiastic about the importance of the role of technology in..
So I don't think it is fair to characterize them as unaware or unenthusiastic about the importance of the role of technology in..
January 27, 2026 at 4:44 PM
... ghg's for some time and so our requirement for significant adaptation investment to deal with current and inevitably worsening climate impacts exists alongside that.
So I don't think it is fair to characterize them as unaware or unenthusiastic about the importance of the role of technology in..
So I don't think it is fair to characterize them as unaware or unenthusiastic about the importance of the role of technology in..
... where already cost-effective because of the rapid cost declines, and, further, bullish on R&D to drive down costs where it is not yet. They see technology as the ultimate mitigation solution.
But because we don't have all those solutions cost-competitive now, we are going to continue to emit..
But because we don't have all those solutions cost-competitive now, we are going to continue to emit..
January 27, 2026 at 4:15 PM
... where already cost-effective because of the rapid cost declines, and, further, bullish on R&D to drive down costs where it is not yet. They see technology as the ultimate mitigation solution.
But because we don't have all those solutions cost-competitive now, we are going to continue to emit..
But because we don't have all those solutions cost-competitive now, we are going to continue to emit..
In general, I like your thread, but I think you are somewhat mischaracterizing the paper in one important way, and maybe missing a key point in another.
The first has to do with the emphasis on technology for mitigation. The authors are specifically bullish on rapid deployment of mitigation tech...
The first has to do with the emphasis on technology for mitigation. The authors are specifically bullish on rapid deployment of mitigation tech...
January 27, 2026 at 4:11 PM
In general, I like your thread, but I think you are somewhat mischaracterizing the paper in one important way, and maybe missing a key point in another.
The first has to do with the emphasis on technology for mitigation. The authors are specifically bullish on rapid deployment of mitigation tech...
The first has to do with the emphasis on technology for mitigation. The authors are specifically bullish on rapid deployment of mitigation tech...
"In other words, not having read paper yet,"
Having read the paper, I'd say that's the only part of your two sentences above that is correct in its characterization of the paper.
And I don't think Auke's specific post you replied to was about the paper, per se, rather some climate movement actors.
Having read the paper, I'd say that's the only part of your two sentences above that is correct in its characterization of the paper.
And I don't think Auke's specific post you replied to was about the paper, per se, rather some climate movement actors.
January 27, 2026 at 3:52 PM
"In other words, not having read paper yet,"
Having read the paper, I'd say that's the only part of your two sentences above that is correct in its characterization of the paper.
And I don't think Auke's specific post you replied to was about the paper, per se, rather some climate movement actors.
Having read the paper, I'd say that's the only part of your two sentences above that is correct in its characterization of the paper.
And I don't think Auke's specific post you replied to was about the paper, per se, rather some climate movement actors.
exactly, bunny!
I mentioned same to identical post on X, and came here to point out.
But it is *always* a pleasure to share this 2011 video by Jerry Mitrovica (recently Harvard then, via UToronto shortly before...)
youtu.be/RhdY-ZezK7w?...
@labradorice.bsky.social
I mentioned same to identical post on X, and came here to point out.
But it is *always* a pleasure to share this 2011 video by Jerry Mitrovica (recently Harvard then, via UToronto shortly before...)
youtu.be/RhdY-ZezK7w?...
@labradorice.bsky.social
Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University
YouTube video by NAS Colloquia
youtu.be
January 22, 2026 at 8:44 AM
exactly, bunny!
I mentioned same to identical post on X, and came here to point out.
But it is *always* a pleasure to share this 2011 video by Jerry Mitrovica (recently Harvard then, via UToronto shortly before...)
youtu.be/RhdY-ZezK7w?...
@labradorice.bsky.social
I mentioned same to identical post on X, and came here to point out.
But it is *always* a pleasure to share this 2011 video by Jerry Mitrovica (recently Harvard then, via UToronto shortly before...)
youtu.be/RhdY-ZezK7w?...
@labradorice.bsky.social
... what emissions we were actually trying to achieve *at the time* ~20 yrs ago, and hence a misrepresentation of things like "how long have we been saying we couldn't stop fossil fuels overnight".
In my opinion, anyway.🤷
In my opinion, anyway.🤷
December 22, 2025 at 3:10 AM
... what emissions we were actually trying to achieve *at the time* ~20 yrs ago, and hence a misrepresentation of things like "how long have we been saying we couldn't stop fossil fuels overnight".
In my opinion, anyway.🤷
In my opinion, anyway.🤷
... part of the discourse then - at least not from the climate side of the house (don't really recall offhand the peak oil chatter timeline anymore).
A personal peeve, because I think there is a revisionist amnesia about...
¹ note, units in the IPCC TAR and Science plots are GtC yr⁻¹ (not GtCO₂).
A personal peeve, because I think there is a revisionist amnesia about...
¹ note, units in the IPCC TAR and Science plots are GtC yr⁻¹ (not GtCO₂).
December 22, 2025 at 3:10 AM
... part of the discourse then - at least not from the climate side of the house (don't really recall offhand the peak oil chatter timeline anymore).
A personal peeve, because I think there is a revisionist amnesia about...
¹ note, units in the IPCC TAR and Science plots are GtC yr⁻¹ (not GtCO₂).
A personal peeve, because I think there is a revisionist amnesia about...
¹ note, units in the IPCC TAR and Science plots are GtC yr⁻¹ (not GtCO₂).
... CO₂ concentrations to net-zero annual emissions and cumulative net emissions tied to the temp targets).
It is really only at this point that actually *stopping* (emissions from) fossil fuels gets purchase. So I don't think we were talking about it not being possible to *stop* "overnight* was...
It is really only at this point that actually *stopping* (emissions from) fossil fuels gets purchase. So I don't think we were talking about it not being possible to *stop* "overnight* was...
December 22, 2025 at 3:10 AM
... CO₂ concentrations to net-zero annual emissions and cumulative net emissions tied to the temp targets).
It is really only at this point that actually *stopping* (emissions from) fossil fuels gets purchase. So I don't think we were talking about it not being possible to *stop* "overnight* was...
It is really only at this point that actually *stopping* (emissions from) fossil fuels gets purchase. So I don't think we were talking about it not being possible to *stop* "overnight* was...