Just as no amount of flat temperature data would dissuade the climate cult, so no amount of flat (or even negative!) data on mask effectiveness will shake the faith of the Church of Covid. Beautiful Theories cannot be disproven by mere information.

The "Covid emergency" will never be over. It will mutate and seek out new missions when this particular virus threat abates, repurposing its funding and clinging to its power. They're already talking up the "next pandemic" and how we must forever remain at DEFCON 2 to be ready.

Masks are now a visible and tangible symbol of an entire agenda. Its champions will use every means possible to force you to wear them forever, including corporate pressure, their new favorite tool. Expect commercial mask requirements to linger, especially big corporations.

True believers, meanwhile, will wear their masks with grim determination and scowl ostentatiously at everyone who refuses to join them. It's a new virtue signal that will not go away any time soon. Mask scolding is a quick, easy, heady power rush.

All the while, studies will keep rolling out that masks don't help, and might even hurt. That was fairly common medical knowledge before the pandemic began, but it was aggressively suppressed when masks became a political symbol, and a totem for people desperate to DO SOMETHING.

New paper: Review and Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Residential Buildings in Humid
Subtropical and Tropical Climates by Daniel Satola et al. 2021 - A Thread (1/9)

We reviewed more than 70 building LCA studies in climate regions common in the Global South, studying building cases from Asia, Oceania, South America and North America. We conduct detailed analyses ...
(2/9)

...based on a final sample of 36 building cases which were fit for harmonization of results. Therein, life cycle GHG emissions show a wide range of 491 to 4811 kgCO2eq/m2. To understand more: First, how structural material choice is influencing emissions...
(3/9)

...we study both embodied and life cycle GHG emission in relation to primary materials used in the building structure. This shows lowest embodied emissions with wood as structural material, and potentially low emissions from use of concrete (non-reinforced). Second,... (4/9)

...we investigate specific design strategies applied in the different cases to analyse their potential for reducing operational and/or embodied GHG emissions. Substantial embodied GHG emissions reduction can be achieved by use of local materials, ... (5/9)

1.
Symbolism Comms Thread: Humpback Whale

Let's start with an example.

01/27/2016 Dead humpback whale washes up on North Carolina coast

"a baby humpback between 1 and 2 years old"

"More biologist on scene. Something's about to

How dispossession and corporate greed leads to environmental harm, a worked example form modern day Scotland.

Thread 1/19

On Saturday 12/12/20 I saw this on a Facebook group of which I am a member. The comment from the poster mentioned it was taken near Langholm in Dumfriesshire.

It appears to show the use of a forestry plough peat soil

2/19

I'm partisan enough to admit that my initial idea was that this might be on Langholm Moor which was the site of a controversial experiment in grouse moor management. I contacted the poster and he sent me this map of the location. Which is not on Langholm Moor 3/19

The location is significant. But before I go into it, a quick explanation of what you are looking at. This photo shows peat ploughed with double mould board forestry plough. Trees are planted on the ridges thrown up, while the furrow drains water. 4/19

The cut in the centre of the furrow is from a 'tine' breaking up a hardened layer of subsoil called an 'ironpan' which inhibits root development. The presence of this pan is the justification for ploughing rather than 'mounding' this site 5/19

A brilliant talk that punctures current discourse on climate ambition in Scotland, setting out what's really needed, by @KevinClimate for @ScotClimateCA

📽️ https://t.co/i02FtSkJT8 📽️

Well worth watching. Otherwise, here's a summary thread 👇
1/10

Want scientific assessment of what Scotland should do to achieve Paris Agreement temperature targets? Look to carbon budgets. See that a failure to rapidly reduce emissions will eat up the carbon budget in just a few years, leaving impossible burdens for future generations. 2/10

Are UK emissions down 45% in 30 years? Not when including emissions from aviation & shipping, and imports & exports – then they are only down 10%. Over three decades, we have had reductions of less than 0.5% per year. 3/10

Scotland’s average per person consumption emissions are still double the global average. Scotland’s consumption emissions have not meaningfully reduced in the last 20 years… 4/10

Principles of global equity and justice mean that Scotland’s fair slice of the global carbon budget is just a few hundred million tonnes of CO2, which is less than ten years of Scotland’s emissions at current levels. 5/10

The Sixth Carbon Budget (2033-2037) charts the decisive move to zero carbon for the UK. The CCC shows that polluting emissions must fall by almost 80% by 2035, compared to 1990 levels – a big step-up in ambition. (1/12) #UKCarbonBudget 🧵

Our recommended Sixth Carbon Budget would achieve well over half of the required emissions reduction to 2050 in the next 15 years, but decisive action must start today. (2/12) #UKCarbonBudget

The recommended Sixth Carbon Budget and UK NDC also reflect the goals and requirements of the Paris Agreement, recognising the UK’s responsibility as a richer developed nation and its respective capabilities. (3/12) #UKCarbonBudget

When we recommended the UK’s #NetZero target for 2050, we demonstrated that any negative economic impact was likely to be small and the overall impact could turn out to be positive. Our analysis for this report reinforces that finding. (4/12) #UKCarbonBudget

Our estimate of the annualised resource cost (which measures the net additional cost each year to deliver the same services with lower emissions) has fallen to less than 1% of GDP through to 2050. (5/12) #UKCarbonBudget

Lately, I have been very disturbed with the whole #climatecrisis. Every day some new naturally unnatural calamity looms over our head.
The ice caps are turning in cold rocks and I end up in a rabbit hole feeling helpless.
1/n

It just sucks to imagine a #future where the only way people can enjoy nature as you and I did via #hiking etc is to read blogs and watch videos.
That sucks on so many levels.
2/n

And when I think about the reasons for this situation. I can't seem to go any further but to pin it on #consumption.
Not just fashion or lifestyle consumption. But any damn product.
From the smallest sewing pin to the giant #spaceships.
3/n

Because let's get real. Everything is one or the other form of a natural resource. Even synthetic product like plastic needs cellulose, coal etc. And so far, the only legit source of natural resources is digging deep into the Earth.
4/n

So you dig up these resources and turn them into the products we consume. The shirts, jeans, bike, laptop, phone etc. Everything is made from nature. Along the way creating jobs and the so-called development.
But how good is this #development?
Moreover is this #Sustainable?
5/n

What were the big energy and climate surprises of the Trump era? Four years ago, I described the most plausible arc for US climate policy under Trump (it was a boring, safe bet) but expected there'd be unexpected developments too. So how about a look back? https://t.co/1Valz4eTEg

1) The pandemic was a huge surprise, obviously, though maybe it's too early to say how that will affect the energy/climate landscape. So far, it’s put a brake on U.S. fracking and induced Europe to pledge staggering sums on hydrogen. Maybe global CO2 emissions have peaked, idk.

2) The growth of battery storage on the US grid has, I think, been a surprise. This interview with @jburwen does a nice job of laying out the truly staggering changes in the storage landscape since 2015, driven by falling costs and some key policy changes.

3) The impact of the IPCC report on 1.5°C was surprising to me. I often wondered what'd happen once it became clear that the world was unlikely to stay below 2°C. Instead, the climate community and world leaders rallied around an even more aggressive, harder to hit target!

4) It was not obvious that Trump's retreat from climate action would spur states, cities, companies, other nations to make even more aggressive net zero pledges of their own. But that’s what happened—those pledges have really proliferated at a scale that’s been surprising to me.

1.Hydrocarbon extraction
2.Sterlite
3.Kudankulam
4.Chennai-Salem Expressway
5.Neutrino
6.GAIL pipeline
7.Kattupalli Port
8.Uppur Thermal
Each one of these projects stalled/delayed.
Tamil Nadu is on its way to becoming a Kerala or Bengal. Oh! Kerala allowed GAIL & Vizhinjam Port

Those who say Kerala has highest social/educational indicators need to understand theirs is a remittance economy sustained by inflows from Gulf. 36% of Kerala's GDP is Gulf money. Without this their per capita income wd be half that of TN or at best 2/3rds.

Despite Gulf money per capita income of Kerala is less than TN. With a jobs crisis in Gulf due to the pandemic and falling Oil prices Kerala will face the moment of truth sooner than later.There is almost no project that causes zero environmental damage.

No highway has ever been built without trees being cut or land being acquired. No SEZ has ever been developed without land being acquired.Of course environmental protection is important. That is why we ask for safeguards. That is why there is an NGT. If Govt officials

are corrupt & ignore rules,solution is to hold them to account not stop all projects. Everyone of us including the protesters now travel on highways built by cutting lakhs of trees&on land acquired from farmers. Lakhs of our youth work in the same SEZ that were once paddy fields

It's (nearly) five years since the Paris Agreement was gaveled through… but was it any good? Tricky question. Based on emissions, temperature data and impacts, no. *But...* (thread)

The team at @SystemIQ_LTD have crunched the numbers & reviewed how far + fast sectors have shifted since 2015. Their take is the global economy could be a decade away from seismic tipping points that see the world move fast towards low carbon.

In 2015, zero-carbon technologies and business models could rarely compete with incumbent carbon-solutions. In 2020, zero-carbon solutions are competitive in sectors representing around 25% of emissions. In 2030 the figure’s looking like 70%.

What does this mean for a COVID-smashed world, where 2021 is shaping up to be a hellish mix of recessions and mass unemployment? Well, the 2020s could see a net increase of 35 million low carbon jobs if governments roll out the right policies + invest wisely.

Can the low carbon acceleration be pinned to Paris? Not entirely, but partly. In 2014 no-one talked of net zero targets. Now 120+ countries either have these plans or are working on them. By mid 2021 the US, China, EU, UK, Japan, Korea, Canada will have these targets.

EU Summit just agreed a “binding EU target of a net domestic reduction of at least 55% in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030” - so UK going somewhat further at 68%...

That is in reference to 1990 carbon emissions - which is the standard point of reference

VDL trying to sound conciliatory - making point about the ratchet clause that all sides “remain free - sovereign” to do what they are want as regards matching future increases in regulations, but that both sides should retain right to adapt conditions for market entry

On fishing VDL says UK must understand legitimate expectations of EU fishing fleet based on decades and sometimes centuries of access ...

journalists at the EU summit seem more interested in asking Merkel/ VDL about Turkey than summit Brexit discussions, so far zero questions - some informational value there ...