Dana Nuccitelli
@dananuccitelli.bsky.social
Research Manager for @cclusa.org, environmental scientist, climate journalist for @climateconnections.bsky.social. Views my own.
Rogan claimed that climate models have been wrong and thus global warming predictions can’t be believed. It’s easy to set the Impossible expectation that models must be perfect, but in reality, climate models have been remarkably accurate, unlike predictions from contrarians like Lindzen (7/11)
November 7, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Rogan claimed that climate models have been wrong and thus global warming predictions can’t be believed. It’s easy to set the Impossible expectation that models must be perfect, but in reality, climate models have been remarkably accurate, unlike predictions from contrarians like Lindzen (7/11)
A small silver lining is that at current emissions rates, the 2°C carbon budget won't be breached until around midcentury, which leaves several decades to bring emissions down. Co-author @hausfath.bsky.social noted, "global CO2 emissions have slowed notably over the past 15 years or so" (5/6)
September 15, 2025 at 5:34 PM
A small silver lining is that at current emissions rates, the 2°C carbon budget won't be breached until around midcentury, which leaves several decades to bring emissions down. Co-author @hausfath.bsky.social noted, "global CO2 emissions have slowed notably over the past 15 years or so" (5/6)
That accelerated warming is causing accelerated sea level rise, now at 4.5 mm/yr, up from 3.7 mm/yr since 2000, which itself is double the 1.85 mm/yr rate since 1900. Lead author Piers Forster noted these unprecedented rates are "expected from greenhouse emissions being at an all-time high" (4/6)
September 15, 2025 at 5:34 PM
That accelerated warming is causing accelerated sea level rise, now at 4.5 mm/yr, up from 3.7 mm/yr since 2000, which itself is double the 1.85 mm/yr rate since 1900. Lead author Piers Forster noted these unprecedented rates are "expected from greenhouse emissions being at an all-time high" (4/6)
The paper finds that we're on track to burn through the 1.5°C carbon budget within 3 years, and breach that long-term temperature marker by around 2030. We're now 1.24°C hotter than pre-industrial temperatures, rising at about 0.27°C per decade. That's nearly 50% faster than the '90s & '00s (3/6)
September 15, 2025 at 5:33 PM
The paper finds that we're on track to burn through the 1.5°C carbon budget within 3 years, and breach that long-term temperature marker by around 2030. We're now 1.24°C hotter than pre-industrial temperatures, rising at about 0.27°C per decade. That's nearly 50% faster than the '90s & '00s (3/6)
Still slogging my way through EPA's 300-page endangerment finding revocation, but this reference to the 'major questions doctrine' seems to be the main justification 🤦♂️
July 29, 2025 at 8:42 PM
Still slogging my way through EPA's 300-page endangerment finding revocation, but this reference to the 'major questions doctrine' seems to be the main justification 🤦♂️
The bill will also hurt the US economy according to modeling by @jessedjenkins.com, @energyinnovation.org, Penn-Wharton. Energy bills will rise, GDP and economic growth will fall, jobs will be lost, national debt will balloon, air pollution will make us sicker as health care coverage declines (7/8)
July 9, 2025 at 5:14 PM
The bill will also hurt the US economy according to modeling by @jessedjenkins.com, @energyinnovation.org, Penn-Wharton. Energy bills will rise, GDP and economic growth will fall, jobs will be lost, national debt will balloon, air pollution will make us sicker as health care coverage declines (7/8)
Through the IRA, Democrats' implemented their strategy of trying to develop domestic supply chains and manufacturing of these key technologies. And as @jayturner.bsky.social's The Big Green Machine has documented, it was working, creating a manufacturing boom (5/8)
www.the-big-green-machine.com
www.the-big-green-machine.com
July 9, 2025 at 5:13 PM
Through the IRA, Democrats' implemented their strategy of trying to develop domestic supply chains and manufacturing of these key technologies. And as @jayturner.bsky.social's The Big Green Machine has documented, it was working, creating a manufacturing boom (5/8)
www.the-big-green-machine.com
www.the-big-green-machine.com
Most new cars sold in the 2030s will be electric (they'll already account for 25% this year). 70% of all new power generating capacity added in 2024 was solar. And China is absolutely dominating the key clean technology industries.
The political parties have 2 different strategies for this...(4/8)
The political parties have 2 different strategies for this...(4/8)
July 9, 2025 at 5:12 PM
Most new cars sold in the 2030s will be electric (they'll already account for 25% this year). 70% of all new power generating capacity added in 2024 was solar. And China is absolutely dominating the key clean technology industries.
The political parties have 2 different strategies for this...(4/8)
The political parties have 2 different strategies for this...(4/8)
The key point the bill's authors failed to grasp is that, as @rockymtninst.bsky.social illustrated in a report from last year, the global economy is in the midst of a transition to a clean technology age. The US became the global superpower by dominating prior ages (3/8)
July 9, 2025 at 5:06 PM
The key point the bill's authors failed to grasp is that, as @rockymtninst.bsky.social illustrated in a report from last year, the global economy is in the midst of a transition to a clean technology age. The US became the global superpower by dominating prior ages (3/8)
Oh and also we need to burn fossil fuels for national security and economic growth, and that's the real "significance" the EPA needs to consider. What did you think "EPA" stands for, Environmental Protection Agency? 🤡
My head hurts, I’m gonna go lie down now 😵💫 (8/8)
My head hurts, I’m gonna go lie down now 😵💫 (8/8)
June 11, 2025 at 7:38 PM
Oh and also we need to burn fossil fuels for national security and economic growth, and that's the real "significance" the EPA needs to consider. What did you think "EPA" stands for, Environmental Protection Agency? 🤡
My head hurts, I’m gonna go lie down now 😵💫 (8/8)
My head hurts, I’m gonna go lie down now 😵💫 (8/8)
Ipso facto, because there's no cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, those emissions do not contribute significantly to dangerous air/climate pollution 🤪 (7/8)
June 11, 2025 at 7:38 PM
Ipso facto, because there's no cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, those emissions do not contribute significantly to dangerous air/climate pollution 🤪 (7/8)
When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA Administrator feels like the solutions are not cost-effective. Carbon capture and storage is too expensive and ineffective, and natural gas is too valuable to burn in place of coal 🙄 (6/8)
June 11, 2025 at 7:37 PM
When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA Administrator feels like the solutions are not cost-effective. Carbon capture and storage is too expensive and ineffective, and natural gas is too valuable to burn in place of coal 🙄 (6/8)
And the EPA Administrator is going to decide that if there is no cost-effective way to reduce emissions, then those emissions can't be a significant problem 🧐 (5/8)
June 11, 2025 at 7:37 PM
And the EPA Administrator is going to decide that if there is no cost-effective way to reduce emissions, then those emissions can't be a significant problem 🧐 (5/8)
You see, EPA isn't going to use a quantitative measurement of "significance." They're going to use vibes instead, a.k.a. "the Administrator's informed judgement" 🤦♂️ (4/8)
June 11, 2025 at 7:36 PM
You see, EPA isn't going to use a quantitative measurement of "significance." They're going to use vibes instead, a.k.a. "the Administrator's informed judgement" 🤦♂️ (4/8)
EPA acknowledges that US power plants are currently responsible for about 3% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. Isn't that "significant"?
You might think so – I sure do! – but here comes the EPA's torturing of logic... (3/8)
You might think so – I sure do! – but here comes the EPA's torturing of logic... (3/8)
June 11, 2025 at 7:36 PM
EPA acknowledges that US power plants are currently responsible for about 3% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. Isn't that "significant"?
You might think so – I sure do! – but here comes the EPA's torturing of logic... (3/8)
You might think so – I sure do! – but here comes the EPA's torturing of logic... (3/8)
Overall, the big bad budget bill is an absolutely terrible deal (14/14):
June 11, 2025 at 6:03 PM
Overall, the big bad budget bill is an absolutely terrible deal (14/14):
10) And of course, more climate pollution. The bill would leave US climate pollution just 20-30% below 2005 levels by 2030, with 3 Gt cumulative emissions added – equivalent to an extra 6 months' of US emissions at a time when they need to fall dramatically to meet climate targets (13/14)
June 11, 2025 at 6:02 PM
10) And of course, more climate pollution. The bill would leave US climate pollution just 20-30% below 2005 levels by 2030, with 3 Gt cumulative emissions added – equivalent to an extra 6 months' of US emissions at a time when they need to fall dramatically to meet climate targets (13/14)
8) Lost economic growth. Similarly, if all of these new facilities aren't built, we lose out on all of the associated private investment and money churning through the US economy. @energyinnovation.org estimated our GDP could lose out on more than $1 trillion as a result (11/14)
June 11, 2025 at 6:01 PM
8) Lost economic growth. Similarly, if all of these new facilities aren't built, we lose out on all of the associated private investment and money churning through the US economy. @energyinnovation.org estimated our GDP could lose out on more than $1 trillion as a result (11/14)
7) Lost jobs. Repealing the clean electricity and EV tax credits would reduce new power plant construction and domestic manufacturing. That means hundreds of thousands fewer construction and manufacturing jobs, especially in districts represented by Republicans (10/14)
June 11, 2025 at 6:01 PM
7) Lost jobs. Repealing the clean electricity and EV tax credits would reduce new power plant construction and domestic manufacturing. That means hundreds of thousands fewer construction and manufacturing jobs, especially in districts represented by Republicans (10/14)
6) Imperiled domestic manufacturing. The IRA has spurred a domestic clean manufacturing boom, mostly in batteries & EVs & solar, with hundreds of projects announced all over the country. Repealing the IRA would imperil $522 billion of announced projects and even some already-built facilities (9/14)
June 11, 2025 at 6:00 PM
6) Imperiled domestic manufacturing. The IRA has spurred a domestic clean manufacturing boom, mostly in batteries & EVs & solar, with hundreds of projects announced all over the country. Repealing the IRA would imperil $522 billion of announced projects and even some already-built facilities (9/14)
And because the bill would also repeal the IRA’s incentives to make homes more energy efficient and install rooftop solar and battery systems, fewer Americans would be able to avoid these rising energy costs.
Total average household energy costs rise ~$1,000–$3,000 over the next 10 years (6/14)
Total average household energy costs rise ~$1,000–$3,000 over the next 10 years (6/14)
June 11, 2025 at 5:58 PM
And because the bill would also repeal the IRA’s incentives to make homes more energy efficient and install rooftop solar and battery systems, fewer Americans would be able to avoid these rising energy costs.
Total average household energy costs rise ~$1,000–$3,000 over the next 10 years (6/14)
Total average household energy costs rise ~$1,000–$3,000 over the next 10 years (6/14)
3) It would be a de facto tax on the other kind of gas too. With fewer clean electricity deployments, utilities would have to burn more natural gas. @rhg.com estimates this increased demand would raise natural gas prices 2–7%, further increasing costs for households with gas appliances (5/14)
June 11, 2025 at 5:57 PM
3) It would be a de facto tax on the other kind of gas too. With fewer clean electricity deployments, utilities would have to burn more natural gas. @rhg.com estimates this increased demand would raise natural gas prices 2–7%, further increasing costs for households with gas appliances (5/14)
2) It would be a de facto electricity tax. Only ~half as much solar & wind would be deployed at a time when electricity demand is skyrocketing due to data centers, AI, electrification, etc. That means higher electricity prices, costing households an estimated $46–160 per year (4/14)
June 11, 2025 at 5:57 PM
2) It would be a de facto electricity tax. Only ~half as much solar & wind would be deployed at a time when electricity demand is skyrocketing due to data centers, AI, electrification, etc. That means higher electricity prices, costing households an estimated $46–160 per year (4/14)
1) It would be a de facto gas tax. Repealing EV credits means 20–40 million fewer EVs on US roads by 2035. Increased demand would raise price as the pump by 3–15 cents/gallon. Plus 10s of millions fewer Americans reducing fuel bills by ~$800/year with EVs. Average fuel costs rise $40–200/year (3/14)
June 11, 2025 at 5:56 PM
1) It would be a de facto gas tax. Repealing EV credits means 20–40 million fewer EVs on US roads by 2035. Increased demand would raise price as the pump by 3–15 cents/gallon. Plus 10s of millions fewer Americans reducing fuel bills by ~$800/year with EVs. Average fuel costs rise $40–200/year (3/14)
CBO score on IRA repeal savings, by tax credit:
June 4, 2025 at 6:52 PM
CBO score on IRA repeal savings, by tax credit: