Read on Twitter
THREAD on why the 
Programme for Government’s 7% per annum (average) GHG emissions reduction over the next decade emphatically does not represent Ireland’s fair share or climate justice.
Touches on rights-based litigation too. 1/
Programme for Government’s 7% per annum (average) GHG emissions reduction over the next decade emphatically does not represent Ireland’s fair share or climate justice. Touches on rights-based litigation too. 1/
In 2019 UNEP said that a 7.6% reduction per annum (*global average*) was needed to limit warming to +1.5C, *assuming massive CO2 removal* somehow later this century.
But has the 3rd highest emissions per capita in the EU & has contributed disproportionately to the problem. 2/
But
has the 3rd highest emissions per capita in the EU & has contributed disproportionately to the problem. 2/
Having allowed our emissions to rise by c.10% between 1990 & 2020, should be reducing its emissions by much more than the global average over the coming decade.
In terms of equity & climate justice, we should be aiming for *much more than* UNEP’s -7.6% per annum, not less. 3/
should be reducing its emissions by much more than the global average over the coming decade.In terms of equity & climate justice, we should be aiming for *much more than* UNEP’s -7.6% per annum, not less. 3/
Excluding the massive negative emissions (which are assumed but may not be achievable), the true scale of the challenge is an annual reduction of c.15% (again, global average). 4/
How, then, will it seriously be said that the Government has “had regard to” climate justice (as required by the Climate Act) in making a new National Mitigation Plan implementing the Programme for Government’s -7% p.a. average?
5/
5/
And how is planning now for the scale of negative emissions assumed?
The IPCC’s scenarios rely heavily on bioenergy with carbon capture & storage (BECCS) power plants for CO2 removal... 6/
planning now for the scale of negative emissions assumed?The IPCC’s scenarios rely heavily on bioenergy with carbon capture & storage (BECCS) power plants for CO2 removal... 6/
...but NB. West Offaly peat-and-biomass power plant was recently refused planning permission in part on the basis that there was no adequate indigenous source of biomass & importing it would be unsustainable & contrary to EU & national policy. 7/
If the PfG’s -7% p.a. average is achieved (a big if), emissions will be about -45% b/w 1990 & 2030 (NB. the UK achieved -40% *by 2020*). This falls well short of
• 50-55% EU cut proposed by European Commission
• the 60% supported by ENVI MEPs https://uk.reuters.com/article/climate-change-eu-law-idUKL8N2G74SX
8/
emissions will be about -45% b/w 1990 & 2030 (NB. the UK achieved -40% *by 2020*). This falls well short of• 50-55% EU cut proposed by European Commission
• the 60% supported by ENVI MEPs https://uk.reuters.com/article/climate-change-eu-law-idUKL8N2G74SX
8/
The German government has recently been taken to court by a group of youth plaintiffs supported by Greenpeace & Germanwatch alleging that the German Federal Climate Law’s 55% target for 2030 (compared to 1990) infringes their rights under German law, in light of the ECHR. 9/
In other words, there is ongoing international precedent for rights-based climate litigation pursuant to the ECHR attacking an aim that is much more ambitious than ‘s (55% vs our 45%). 
10/
‘s (55% vs our 45%). 10/
In 2014, in its Emissions Gap report, UNEP produced this useful image showing the consequences of rapidly depleting the remaining carbon budget (for +2C), as we are doing now: we overshoot the budget & then need to remove huge amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, if we can. 11/
The IPCC notes that globally we’re emitting ~42 GtCO2 per year & in 2018 we had a remaining carbon budget of ~420 GtCO2 for a 66% chance of limiting heating to +1.5C.
So in 2018, 10 years of current emissions was all that remained of the global carbon budget for +1.5C. 12/
So in 2018, 10 years of current emissions was all that remained of the global carbon budget for +1.5C. 12/
Re the consequences of delayed action, UNEP says: greater costs, steeper future reductions reqd, greater risks of failing to limit temp rise, greater future reliance on negative emissions technologies (if these exist & can be deployed at scale w/out unacceptable impacts). 13/
The Government does not dispute the IPCC’s advice or UNEP’s, as evidenced by the @climatecaseire legal proceedings.
Yet the PfG appears to have delay hardwired into its DNA (pics), via its stated aim of an *average* 7% per annum GHG emissions reduction from 2021 to 2030. 14/
Yet the PfG appears to have delay hardwired into its DNA (pics), via its stated aim of an *average* 7% per annum GHG emissions reduction from 2021 to 2030. 14/
This seems to be a political compromise based on
• expectation management: incl. covering the eventuality that emissions don’t fall much (if at all) over the next 5 yrs
• a belief(?) that 7% p.a. average can in fact be delivered from 2021-2030 by backloading in this way. 15/
• expectation management: incl. covering the eventuality that emissions don’t fall much (if at all) over the next 5 yrs
• a belief(?) that 7% p.a. average can in fact be delivered from 2021-2030 by backloading in this way. 15/
The notion of pushing steep reductions out a little further is clear not just from the PfG but also from its negotiation.
Consider this reported Green Party ask that was reportedly rejected: reduction of cattle numbers *in 5 years* if agri emissions don’t fall by then. 16/
Consider this reported Green Party ask that was reportedly rejected: reduction of cattle numbers *in 5 years* if agri emissions don’t fall by then. 16/
Such a reduction was of course recommended by the Climate Change Advisory Council in its Annual Review 2019. 17/
The expectation management point taps into the (no doubt true) notion that *some* (PfG says “many”) interventions will have a delayed pay off in terms of emissions reductions.
But many interventions could result in rapid reductions. 18/
But many interventions could result in rapid reductions. 18/
Consider, for example, the emissions reduction policies in the Netherlands following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Urgenda case. 19/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/dutch-officials-reveal-measures-to-cut-emissions-after-court-ruling
And see this thread re the consequences of delaying emissions reductions in until later this decade. (Full report in thread & excerpt in pic.)
Key conclusion: “early and deep emission reductions are therefore likely required, starting immediately” 20/ https://twitter.com/swimsure/status/1286266617173811200
until later this decade. (Full report in thread & excerpt in pic.)Key conclusion: “early and deep emission reductions are therefore likely required, starting immediately” 20/ https://twitter.com/swimsure/status/1286266617173811200
If we exceed the budget for 1.5C (~8 yrs left on current trends), we’ll be in even more dangerous territory, tipping points, etc.
A key Q: have those who are content w/PfG’s -7% p.a over next decade abandoned limiting heating to +1.5C & now seek to limit damage above this? 21/
A key Q: have those who are content w/PfG’s -7% p.a over next decade abandoned limiting heating to +1.5C & now seek to limit damage above this? 21/
Some might argue for this on grounds of, say, pragmatism or political realism - but if this is the case it should be made clear now.
And if it’s *not* the case, those content with the PfG’s 7% p.a. over the next decade shld show how it’s consistent w/1.5C & climate justice. 22/
And if it’s *not* the case, those content with the PfG’s 7% p.a. over the next decade shld show how it’s consistent w/1.5C & climate justice. 22/
This is the context in which the “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” debate arises. The good-to-perfect spectrum is much narrower than many seem to think.
Coral reefs will decline by 70-90% at +1.5C & by >99% at +2C.
+1.5C is not “good”; above 1.5C is very very bad.
23/
Coral reefs will decline by 70-90% at +1.5C & by >99% at +2C.
+1.5C is not “good”; above 1.5C is very very bad.
23/
This isn’t party political. I don’t see any party w/policies reflecting the science or climate justice.
Civil society needs to step up now. Giving a ‘nod to equity’ is not enough.
What’s needed, surely, is a huge ramping up of ambition, urgency & action, starting now. 24/
Civil society needs to step up now. Giving a ‘nod to equity’ is not enough.What’s needed, surely, is a huge ramping up of ambition, urgency & action, starting now. 24/
How long before NPHET is asked to help tackle climate breakdown, the greatest public health emergency we’ve ever faced? 25&End/ @ronan_glynn @EamonRyan @MichealMartinTD @LeoVaradkar @DonnellyStephen @cathmartingreen
