There's a huge gap between what climate scientists are willing to say privately and what we're willing to say publicly, in terms of how dire a situation we're in. Colleagues, integrity demands we close this gap.

Many wonder how epidemiology could have become so politicized. But epidemiology - like climate science (the other "mysteriously politicized" subject) has intrinsic politics: to take epidemiology seriously, you have to acknowledge that our species has a shared destiny.

1/

Much of the debate over "liberty" can be summed up as "you do you" - I'll swing my arm over here, you keep your nose over there, and so long as we both respect each others' "freedom," I won't punch you in the nose and your nose will remain unpunched.

2/

This breaks down when applied to epidemiology: "You wear your mask, I'll leave mine at home, and we'll both exercise our freedoms" is like "You swim in the no-pissing end of the pool, I'll swim down here in the pissing end, and we'll both get our way."

3/

We're in the same epidemiological pool, and the science is clear: masking's benefit is primarily in protecting others from you - your presymptomatic, asymptomatic (or symptomatic) spread of particles. Your decision not to wear a mask puts me in danger.

4/

If your worldview ascribes political outcomes to individual choices (implying that poverty or misfortune are the result of a combination of laziness and inferiority), then anything that demands a systemic view challenges its very foundations.

5/

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.

To "The Sky Is Falling" Idiots

Read this thread 👇🏾

The proof is ALL OVER THE INTERWEB 🧐

GLOBAL WARMING (as described by the Left) IS A HOAX and Being Used Against You As A Money Making Machine 🧐

I Have Posted this Many Times Before, but here YOU ALL go again INVESTIGATE IT

Long thread here... from Keith, on tree guards:

I really don’t want to spread 120,000 plastic tree guards across the side of our lovely hill, the hill where I grew up and now farm, on the eastern edge of the Black Mountains. So, I’ve taken a good look at the pros,... 1/25

the cons and the alternatives, to try and decide rationally, which is the best approach for our plant on the Bryn Arw.

It has become the accepted norm in the UK that to plant a tree, you need to put your sapling in the ground and then wrap a plastic tree guard around it.

This is simply ‘how it’s done’ now. This practice uses a huge amount of plastic; worse still, it disperses plastic extremely efficiently around the countryside. In some rural places, un-retrieved tree guards are by far the biggest source of plastic pollution.

And yet the first commercial plastic tree guards only came on the market 38 years ago. There are many perfectly healthy woodlands and trees that are older than this, and which became established without plastic – which begs the question: do we really need guards?

Plastic tree guards have several uses, some of which did revolutionise tree planting when they first came out. In particular, they:
•protect your saplings from things that want to eat them;
•provide a microclimate, which enhances tree growth, according to the manufacturers;

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)