"He for real."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqSo...

Shh! 🤫

The mainstream media has finally flipped, painting California as a problematic place and running stories about people leaving the state.

Let's not discourage this!

This RFF brief seems to indicate that double-dipping on 45Q would be ruled out. Also it seems that the zero life-cycle emissions requirement would disqualify Allam-cycle plants (due to upstream methane leaks), but one wonders how Treasury under Trump would interpret....

www.rff.org/publications...

oof. good call out. Allam-cycle power plants (which burn gas) seem like another potential taker of technology neutral tax credits. And they might be able to double-dip with the 45Q tax credit.

Turns out the new InfluenceMap is great, but doesn't cover promotion of CCS....

Thanks! As it happens I’m looking for documentation to support the claim that the industry is promoting CCS as a delay tactic, ie some sort of PR analysis or reporting on internal industry documents. Hope it’s in this report!

Thanks! Is this your data set? Could you sort it chrono? Would be interested to see any trends over time.

The Hill Heat round up of media coverage (aside from USA Today) is here (written up by @climatebrad.hillheat.com)

hillheat.news/p/tropical-d...

So, the next time you hear someone talk about the “expanding bull’s-eye effect,” you might call out expanding bullsh*t.

huntercutting.medium.com/the-expandin...

Denier's point to the “expanding bull’s-eye effect," claiming that as cities grow, flooding will increase with asphalt.

But, according to the USGS: “Under these conditions, essentially all of the rain that falls, whether on paved surfaces or on saturated soil, runs off and becomes streamflow.”

Regardless of the record-rainfall, "more asphalt" is a classic response by climate deniers. However, that explanation just doesn't hold water. There’s not much difference between asphalt and saturated soils when it comes to run-off, and it doesn’t take much to saturate the top level of soil.

How more asphalt drove record-breaking rainfall, USA Today does not explain.

www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/sar...

The main thrust of the post (biogenic methane is fundamentally different than fossil methane) is not wrong.

However, the post fails to mention a KEY aspect of the fundamental difference: Unlike reducing CO2 emissions, reducing methane emissions from cows would LOWER the global temperature.

Great thread, thanks! If I may, the wording in the first post: "thus touching the Paris Agreement limit" might lead casual readers to a conclusion different from where the thread lands. The "limit" refers to - as you later highlight" - long-term average temperature.

The paper contrasts the choice of a 2050 next-zero target by advanced countries against the choice of a 2060 target by developing countries. However, isn't the developing country choice more in line with the UNFCCC? While the advanced country target not? Given the IPCC global target of 2050?

Great overview, thank you.

"There are lies. There are damned lies. And there are Integrated Assessment Models." - me/Disraeli

And it’s the impacts that we care about, it's the impacts that drove the Paris Agreement. 

The impacts of global warming of 1.5°C were NOT witnessed in 2023.

If you think things are bad now, they will be far worse at 1.5°C of warming. And the damages will escalate dramatically from there.

The impacts of global warming at 1.5°C set out by the IPCC were calculated on the basis of a long-term elevation of global temperatures 1.5°C above pre-industrial, NOT a temporary one-year spike bumped up by a major El Niño event.  2/n