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.
The Paris “ratchet” is nationally determined, not imposed by the UN. Leaders get to decide. They are increasingly deciding to be more ambitious. Cities and regions are joining the party: well over 50% of global GDP now has Paris-aligned targets.
A climate-safe planet is not assured, but technology shifts fast. In 2014, @IEA forecast average #solar prices would reach $0.05/kWh by 2050. It took only 6 *not* 36 years to hit that price. Solar and wind will be the cheapest form of new generation everywhere later this decade.
Before 2024, electric vehicles (EVs) will beat internal combustion on sticker price parity, a fraction of the maintenance, unparalleled acceleration, and near equal range. Combustion engines could go the same way as DVDs. Once an innovation, now killed by @netflix.
It’s not just power and EVs. Today, there are 66 zero-emissions shipping pilots. 200 electric airplanes are in development. SystemIQ reckon electric aviation will be commercial by the mid 2020s — 2030s for larger planes. Low carbon steel, cement, aluminium pilots are a reality.
Big oil sees the writing on the wall, quitting long-life projects: since 2014, the average lifetime of major industry projects has declined from 50 to 30 years and the trend is accelerating. Money spent on dirty, old sectors could be a dollar that an investor might not get back.
Yeah, but. The 2020 @UNEP #EmissionsGap is bleak. A thread by @Peters_Glen this week highlighted governments have largely failed to use COVID stimulus packages to go green not dirty. Dollars have been poured into fossil fuel industry black holes instead of backing the future.
Temperatures continue to rise, impacts mount, climate finance flows go down, the whole concept of multilateralism looks shaky. And yet, to rip off the @SYSTEMIQ_Ltd report’s Executive Summary, ‘The case for enlightened self-interest has never been stronger’.
Tangible shifts are taking place in the face of wealthy and powerful incumbent forces. External elements are moving faster than many realise. The digitisation of the economy and connected world is accelerating learning. Low interest rates benefit investors in new capital.
And yes, public opinion is shifting. Consider elections for the EU Presidency, UK, New Zealand and US were all won in 2019–2020 on a strong #climate platform. Polling (I defer to @LeoBarasi on this) shows strong support for greener spaces, cleaner air, a safer environment.
It's not to say we’ll be fine on climate, that all investors in the City of London and Wall Street are piling into sustainable investments - @MCL1965 @JAmbachtsheer @stevewaygood @AssaadRazzouk @JG_climate @CampanaleMark are the ones to follow here
It’s not to say the changes aren’t scary for many who rely on incumbent high carbon sectors. Govts need solid transition plans (like @Teresaribera's in Spain). But change is happening, and we either accept that and swim with the flow, or ultimately we get swept along.
Final thought: Tackling the #climate crisis is often now referred to as a ‘sprint’. Sprinters typically take 40–50 metres to hit top speed. Post Paris, the low carbon athlete is - what - in the 10–20m transition zone phase? Heads coming up, bodies straightening, legs powering.
Key rivals — impacts, temperatures, emissions — are ahead. But the low carbon runner isn’t close to top speed. The 2020s are when they turn up the (green) gas. A decade of transition and truth awaits.
Full report here... @usainbolt will love it https://t.co/SEWhBo1rJP

More from Climate change

I don't have time to make this detailed, but here's a little thread about the world's first major politically-charged blackout that was blamed on renewables, in South Australia, in 2016............

On September 28, 2016, an unprecedented tropical storm progressed rapidly across South Australia. Truly - this thing was unusual. The sky folded in on itself. It tore towns to bits.


Australia's @climatecouncil pointed out that the storm was so unusual at least partly due to the influence of climate change, and that this is due to get worse.

https://t.co/76ekkfJpR8


I'm going to use brief snippets from my book to fill this out! The storm's primary impact on the grid was the destruction of several major transmission lines. When I say destruction - I mean they snapped like twigs.


Here's what happened in the following seconds:

- A voltage spike from the line falls
- Wind turbines automatically shut off due to software settings that trigger shutdown during a spike
- The interconnector to Vic tried to compensate, failed and died
- All of SA blacked out

You May Also Like

I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.


I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.

In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.

So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.

Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.