Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking carbon dioxide removal is the solution to climate change. It’s a small piece of the puzzle. But it won't be able to offset a substantial portion of our fossil fuel emissions 🧵

Just presented some of my ongoing research at #EGU25 in Vienna! A thread...

The land sink is uncertain in a changing climate. This is another reason why using nature-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to offset fossil emissions can be sketchy...

We should point to the rising costs of insurance to demonstrate that climate change is dangerous and is worth mitigating against/ adapting to. I suspect that, for many folks, $$ is easier to understand than climate observations and projections. Informative podcast on insurance and climate change

Great reads. I've always believed that changes in the insurance industry are a powerful tool for driving momentum for climate policy. Unlike many other industries, private insurance can't afford to ignore climate impacts or delay action (state-run insurance is a bit different)

1/3 Another study showing why nature-based carbon removal, in which the duration of removal may only be years to decades at worst, should not be used to offset fossil emissions.

Susan Solomon's study, demonstrating that warming caused by CO₂ persists for thousands of years, and Damon Matthews' (my supervisor) study, showing that near-zero emissions are necessary to stabilize warming, were published 15 and 16 years ago, respectively. It seems the message still hasn't sunk in

Happy to have played a small part in @sethwynes.bsky.social newest paper! An interesting finding is that IPCC authors estimates' of peak warming and when we'll reach net-zero CO2 are inconsistent with climate modelling and scenario literature. We discuss some potential explanations