Interesting - wasn't aware, will keep an eye on that

yes I forgot to mention the nukes as you can't switch them off (at least not easily) even when there's a on of wind

I think they might avoid the trees in that scenario

They went on
"I look forward to seeing if we can hit another clean energy milestone in the months ahead: running Britain's electricity grid entirely zero carbon."

The System Operator is hoping to run purely on renewables in the next few months

As applied to UK, it's nuts govt will take huge stakes in nuclear power stations to lower finance costs, when nuclear is peripheral to power sector decarb

But is not doing so for offshore wind, which is essential. And over which potential prices the right-wing media is losing its shit daily

it's double edged because they haven't peaked yet. But yes you're right it's potentially good as they're serious about climate action

it will be territorial emissions for sure

The worry is that as trees are lost to deforestation, fire & heat stress, forest releases less moisture into the atmosphere, reducing rainfall and intensifying drought - creating a feedback loop killing more trees.

If this continues, vast areas of rainforest could die away and become dry grassland

today's version of Ministry for Truth would include "Coal is Clean"

CODA 2

"The report notes that household energy spending would be lower under the more ambitious Net Zero Emissions scenario than under [current government] stated policies, despite the need for greater investment"

www.carbonbrief.org/iea-fossil-f...

🧵CODA

Here Dave from Ember expands on his quote, explains why the assumptions underlying the scenario which the FT leads with are not connected to the real world

Anyone writing a cheque for a $ billion or 2 for new oil&gas on the back of it has failed on due diligence

bsky.app/profile/clea...