Impressive inference in lesson 2. If I get RF right, she says: Because some promises can't be enacted due to Hochul, the right will say 'socialism bad, chavez' and that's bad for public support? To me, unless left adapts rightwing policy, right will always say 'look, USSR'

Get sidebery they said, it'll make your life easier they said. Now I have a lot of unfinished business. (1012 are bookmarks, not tabs)

Main results: The figure shows where the empirical literature is at (n=403).

Most studies reviewed focus on EPS from bioenergy and carbon dioxide removal. You can also see that EPS is ubiquitous across mitigation measures, that is, all measures cause multiple EPS.
(6/14)

EPS actually emerges as the most accurate term.

Alternative terms are either not specific to environmental issues (trade-off), suggest an a priori hierarchy between the climate mitigation and the secondary environmental effect (side effect), or lack direction (interaction).
(5/14)

Some mitigation measures are known to drive negative environmental impacts, e.g. biomass plantations causing water scarcity. Some claim that other measures (e.g. wind power) are environmentally detrimental.

But really though?
(3/14)

Environmental problem shifting (EPS) occurs when climate change mitigation causes environmental problems, such as water scarcity, deforestation, and biodiversity loss.

Is it inevitable?

The answer is ‘no, but’, based on our review of 506 studies.
(2/14)

Will climate change mitigation cause environmental degradation? Does wind power kill birdlife, bats, and whales?

I’m proud (and relieved😅) to share my first PhD publication.
Read it in PNAS Nexus 🔓 https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad448

🧵 which will also explain this pretty visual
(1/14)