OUT NOW: we revisit the pivotal moment when science, institutions and politics aligned to deliver the UK’s #NetZero target. At a time of political divergence, the evidence for #ClimateAction remains clear. Evidence-based #ClimatePolicy is more relevant than ever. @granthamicl.bsky.social

What becomes of the 1.5°C goal now that global warming is approaching that level?🌍🔥🌡️ In a new @science.org Policy Forum we explain how the 1.5°C goal remains a critical legal & ethical benchmark, even as the world nears and may soon exceed 1.5°C of global warming🧵1/ www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

⚠️Global warming caused by humans is advancing at 0.27°C per decade – the highest rate since records began. This is one of the indicators updated every year by over 60 international scientists in the annual Indicators of Global Climate Change report – published today. doi.org/10.5194/essd... /1

I categorically disagree with claims that CO₂ removal (CDR) is a scam. The field is full of smart people dedicated to figuring out what, if anything, works, because we’ll need CDR in the future for legacy and residual emissions. Funding via market mechanisms isn’t ideal, but doesn’t make it a scam.

I’ll says this once: We’re spending a lot more on mitigation (e.g., renewables) than on CDR research. A lot more. It could simultaneously be true that CDR research acts as mitigation deterrence and we need to do CDR research. Trees will not be enough to reduce atmospheric CO₂.

How can we scale CO₂ removal (CDR) and ensure we don't delay CO₂ emission reduction? @jeffreyampah.bsky.social has you covered in our new publication. Please read his thread, read our paper, and follow Jeff!

Good story: CDR is not necessarily the enemy of emission reduction 👇

🚨New in Nature Reviews Clean Technologies: Scaling carbon removal without delaying emission reductions In this commentary, we maintain that smart policy design allows both to move together, avoiding the usual "mitigation deterrence" trap Full thread unpacking our argument below 👇

Almost a year late in posting this here ICYMI📍📌: Our @NatureComms study on CDR reliance is finally out!!!. Deployment expectations of multi-gigatonne scale carbon removal could have adverse impacts on Asia’s energy-water-land nexus | Nature Communications Find out more doi.org/10.1038/s414...

📌NEW PAPER📌 Happy to share our new paper, where we quantify the negative impacts and co-benefits associated with excessive reliance on CDR. We surely need CDR but only in a complementary role while decarbonization takes the driving seat towards 1.5C