Dominic Lavelle
@dominiclavelle.bsky.social
I help companies plan for - and deliver - Net Zero
I also volunteer for the Carbon Accounting Alliance
Based in Worcester & London.
Personal account. Opinions mine and mine alone.
I also volunteer for the Carbon Accounting Alliance
Based in Worcester & London.
Personal account. Opinions mine and mine alone.
Reposted by Dominic Lavelle
Brilliant list, thanks for communicating it so clearly. Another huge thing is the circular economy. I love using examples like a council run swimming pool in Devon being heated by a data center (not AI). This reduces costs and emissions for both and everyone wins. These heat networks will only grow.
November 17, 2025 at 9:13 AM
Brilliant list, thanks for communicating it so clearly. Another huge thing is the circular economy. I love using examples like a council run swimming pool in Devon being heated by a data center (not AI). This reduces costs and emissions for both and everyone wins. These heat networks will only grow.
In the UK we need a lot of land in addition to the UK to satisfy this "need"
November 17, 2025 at 4:33 PM
In the UK we need a lot of land in addition to the UK to satisfy this "need"
I can't access it :(
I assume you're using a 100 year GWP time horizon?
I assume you're using a 100 year GWP time horizon?
November 11, 2025 at 4:56 PM
I can't access it :(
I assume you're using a 100 year GWP time horizon?
I assume you're using a 100 year GWP time horizon?
"If we can just appease them on this one thing maybe they will leave us alone?"
Nope, that's not how it works.
Nope, that's not how it works.
November 11, 2025 at 4:29 PM
"If we can just appease them on this one thing maybe they will leave us alone?"
Nope, that's not how it works.
Nope, that's not how it works.
"We need to be pragmatic" followed by climate solutions denial
October 31, 2025 at 7:40 AM
"We need to be pragmatic" followed by climate solutions denial
That would be awesome as it means we are there now commercially and can get on with mass roll out.
Energy abundance for all 👌🔥
Energy abundance for all 👌🔥
October 22, 2025 at 6:38 PM
That would be awesome as it means we are there now commercially and can get on with mass roll out.
Energy abundance for all 👌🔥
Energy abundance for all 👌🔥
Long term storage?
October 22, 2025 at 6:30 PM
Long term storage?
Totally agree. I'd also add the massive increase in car usage now prevents kids from being independent - it's often dangerous for them to go out on their own
So no youth clubs, dangerous to go out when younger... Then when these kids enter the workforce adults complain they don't have social skills
So no youth clubs, dangerous to go out when younger... Then when these kids enter the workforce adults complain they don't have social skills
October 12, 2025 at 7:45 PM
Totally agree. I'd also add the massive increase in car usage now prevents kids from being independent - it's often dangerous for them to go out on their own
So no youth clubs, dangerous to go out when younger... Then when these kids enter the workforce adults complain they don't have social skills
So no youth clubs, dangerous to go out when younger... Then when these kids enter the workforce adults complain they don't have social skills
The fundamentals suggest the price of these coins will fall to zero.
So let's see if that happens ;)
(I still think Bitcoin might fall close to zero in future... I've no idea when though)
So let's see if that happens ;)
(I still think Bitcoin might fall close to zero in future... I've no idea when though)
October 11, 2025 at 10:52 PM
The fundamentals suggest the price of these coins will fall to zero.
So let's see if that happens ;)
(I still think Bitcoin might fall close to zero in future... I've no idea when though)
So let's see if that happens ;)
(I still think Bitcoin might fall close to zero in future... I've no idea when though)
Reminds me of Wing Chun martial arts 😆
a black and white photo of a man in a black shirt standing in a crowded street .
ALT: a black and white photo of a man in a black shirt standing in a crowded street .
media.tenor.com
October 7, 2025 at 4:45 PM
Reminds me of Wing Chun martial arts 😆
Windsun energy ;)
October 7, 2025 at 4:15 PM
Windsun energy ;)
Reposted by Dominic Lavelle
I don't fully agree with this analysis. It's more nuanced than the article makes out.
Offsets are often held to a higher standard than other form of decarbonisation.
For example:
"projects with leakage, such as protecting part of a forest but effectively pushing loggers elsewhere"
1/x
Offsets are often held to a higher standard than other form of decarbonisation.
For example:
"projects with leakage, such as protecting part of a forest but effectively pushing loggers elsewhere"
1/x
October 6, 2025 at 10:06 PM
I don't fully agree with this analysis. It's more nuanced than the article makes out.
Offsets are often held to a higher standard than other form of decarbonisation.
For example:
"projects with leakage, such as protecting part of a forest but effectively pushing loggers elsewhere"
1/x
Offsets are often held to a higher standard than other form of decarbonisation.
For example:
"projects with leakage, such as protecting part of a forest but effectively pushing loggers elsewhere"
1/x
The IPCC state that halting deforestation is crucial for climate change mitigation.
But protecting existing forest struggles to meet "additionally" criteria because you can't prove it would have been chopped down without the funding from offsets.
Which is silly.. we have to protect the forests.
But protecting existing forest struggles to meet "additionally" criteria because you can't prove it would have been chopped down without the funding from offsets.
Which is silly.. we have to protect the forests.
October 6, 2025 at 10:47 PM
The IPCC state that halting deforestation is crucial for climate change mitigation.
But protecting existing forest struggles to meet "additionally" criteria because you can't prove it would have been chopped down without the funding from offsets.
Which is silly.. we have to protect the forests.
But protecting existing forest struggles to meet "additionally" criteria because you can't prove it would have been chopped down without the funding from offsets.
Which is silly.. we have to protect the forests.
Yes agree.
In my other examples those decarbonisation initiatives would be counted as genuine carbon reduction.
I don't know the answer, I just sense the bar offsets have to overcome - in particular around "additionally" - is not applied to other decarb initiatives.
In my other examples those decarbonisation initiatives would be counted as genuine carbon reduction.
I don't know the answer, I just sense the bar offsets have to overcome - in particular around "additionally" - is not applied to other decarb initiatives.
October 6, 2025 at 10:40 PM
Yes agree.
In my other examples those decarbonisation initiatives would be counted as genuine carbon reduction.
I don't know the answer, I just sense the bar offsets have to overcome - in particular around "additionally" - is not applied to other decarb initiatives.
In my other examples those decarbonisation initiatives would be counted as genuine carbon reduction.
I don't know the answer, I just sense the bar offsets have to overcome - in particular around "additionally" - is not applied to other decarb initiatives.
I'm not here to defend offsets in particular, they do have issues.
But many are worthwhile projects.
I feel this nuance is missed when people imply all offsets are worthless.
5/5
But many are worthwhile projects.
I feel this nuance is missed when people imply all offsets are worthless.
5/5
October 6, 2025 at 10:17 PM
I'm not here to defend offsets in particular, they do have issues.
But many are worthwhile projects.
I feel this nuance is missed when people imply all offsets are worthless.
5/5
But many are worthwhile projects.
I feel this nuance is missed when people imply all offsets are worthless.
5/5
The underlying point is that systematic change is needed, and all these actions nudge towards systematic change.
So for example if I invest in protecting a forest, that is inherently a good thing.
4/x
So for example if I invest in protecting a forest, that is inherently a good thing.
4/x
October 6, 2025 at 10:16 PM
The underlying point is that systematic change is needed, and all these actions nudge towards systematic change.
So for example if I invest in protecting a forest, that is inherently a good thing.
4/x
So for example if I invest in protecting a forest, that is inherently a good thing.
4/x
Or let's say I'm a corporate that wants to reduce my travel emissions so I ban employees taking short haul flights.
All those flights will probably take off anyway.
There are lots of other examples I could give.
3/x
All those flights will probably take off anyway.
There are lots of other examples I could give.
3/x
October 6, 2025 at 10:13 PM
Or let's say I'm a corporate that wants to reduce my travel emissions so I ban employees taking short haul flights.
All those flights will probably take off anyway.
There are lots of other examples I could give.
3/x
All those flights will probably take off anyway.
There are lots of other examples I could give.
3/x
Other forms of decarbonisation have the same issue...
Let's say I'm a large oil company and I decide to actually implement my ESG strategy and stop looking for new oil fields.
What will the other oil companies do?.... they will probably find the oil fields you were going to find.
Same issue.
2/x
Let's say I'm a large oil company and I decide to actually implement my ESG strategy and stop looking for new oil fields.
What will the other oil companies do?.... they will probably find the oil fields you were going to find.
Same issue.
2/x
October 6, 2025 at 10:10 PM
Other forms of decarbonisation have the same issue...
Let's say I'm a large oil company and I decide to actually implement my ESG strategy and stop looking for new oil fields.
What will the other oil companies do?.... they will probably find the oil fields you were going to find.
Same issue.
2/x
Let's say I'm a large oil company and I decide to actually implement my ESG strategy and stop looking for new oil fields.
What will the other oil companies do?.... they will probably find the oil fields you were going to find.
Same issue.
2/x
I don't fully agree with this analysis. It's more nuanced than the article makes out.
Offsets are often held to a higher standard than other form of decarbonisation.
For example:
"projects with leakage, such as protecting part of a forest but effectively pushing loggers elsewhere"
1/x
Offsets are often held to a higher standard than other form of decarbonisation.
For example:
"projects with leakage, such as protecting part of a forest but effectively pushing loggers elsewhere"
1/x
October 6, 2025 at 10:06 PM
I don't fully agree with this analysis. It's more nuanced than the article makes out.
Offsets are often held to a higher standard than other form of decarbonisation.
For example:
"projects with leakage, such as protecting part of a forest but effectively pushing loggers elsewhere"
1/x
Offsets are often held to a higher standard than other form of decarbonisation.
For example:
"projects with leakage, such as protecting part of a forest but effectively pushing loggers elsewhere"
1/x
I'm not sure what my exact point is... I think there is something in the US result that Labour members could find insightful
(And maybe even more widely how the progressive vote is always split and the dangers of that)
If I'm incorrect in any of the above please do point it out, I'm here to learn
(And maybe even more widely how the progressive vote is always split and the dangers of that)
If I'm incorrect in any of the above please do point it out, I'm here to learn
October 5, 2025 at 8:20 PM
I'm not sure what my exact point is... I think there is something in the US result that Labour members could find insightful
(And maybe even more widely how the progressive vote is always split and the dangers of that)
If I'm incorrect in any of the above please do point it out, I'm here to learn
(And maybe even more widely how the progressive vote is always split and the dangers of that)
If I'm incorrect in any of the above please do point it out, I'm here to learn
And then there is anecdotal evidence that some Dems abstained in the presidential election due to Dem policy positions, Eg Gaza.
(To be fair this article also says many abstentions were because they were not in swing states so their vote didn't matter)
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024...
(To be fair this article also says many abstentions were because they were not in swing states so their vote didn't matter)
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024...
October 5, 2025 at 8:15 PM
And then there is anecdotal evidence that some Dems abstained in the presidential election due to Dem policy positions, Eg Gaza.
(To be fair this article also says many abstentions were because they were not in swing states so their vote didn't matter)
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024...
(To be fair this article also says many abstentions were because they were not in swing states so their vote didn't matter)
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024...
I'm guess I'm saying many dems did not get behind their party in 2024..
Either they switched parties or they did not vote.
"In the 2024 presidential election, a higher share of Donald Trump’s 2020 voters than Joe Biden’s 2020 voters turned out to vote. "
www.pewresearch.org/politics/202...
Either they switched parties or they did not vote.
"In the 2024 presidential election, a higher share of Donald Trump’s 2020 voters than Joe Biden’s 2020 voters turned out to vote. "
www.pewresearch.org/politics/202...
Voter turnout, 2020-2024
Overall and across most demographic groups, Trump’s 2020 voters turned out at higher rates in 2024 than Biden’s did, a Pew Research Center analysis shows.
www.pewresearch.org
October 5, 2025 at 8:05 PM
I'm guess I'm saying many dems did not get behind their party in 2024..
Either they switched parties or they did not vote.
"In the 2024 presidential election, a higher share of Donald Trump’s 2020 voters than Joe Biden’s 2020 voters turned out to vote. "
www.pewresearch.org/politics/202...
Either they switched parties or they did not vote.
"In the 2024 presidential election, a higher share of Donald Trump’s 2020 voters than Joe Biden’s 2020 voters turned out to vote. "
www.pewresearch.org/politics/202...