Thanks Gunnar, it has been such a pleasure working on these scenarios with you! The REMIND model continues to be a crucial foundation for best available science on 1.5ºC!

This scenario gives me hope, and I hope it gives you hope to. Let’s double down on action to try and rescue 1.5ºC.

Read more here: climateanalytics.org/publications...

But it shows that we don’t have to give up on 1.5ºC (and with it, give up on the most vulnerable).

Personally, I’m all in on the fight for 1.5ºC. It’s not a magic line in the sand, but it’s a lifeline for climate justice.

If we deliver these four levers, we can peak temperatures and get back below 1.5ºC pre-2100.

This is not a “good” scenario. It’s one of profound loss & climate impacts that were totally avoidable if we’d acted in line with the science and cut emissions earlier. I struggle to feel "happy" about it

If you don’t think this CDR scale-up is possible, that’s fair.

The good news is that even BECCS/DACCS only scale to 1 GtCO2 by 2050 and never beyond that, we can still get below 1.5ºC pre-2100 (I ran the numbers 🤓)

We’re pushing the CDR frontier, but if we fall short we can still rescue 1.5ºC

We have tried to stay within feasibility limits on CDR & avoid mad reliance on tree-planting. But this is still a lot of CDR.

This CDR is not compensating for fossil fuels – which are phased out fully.

The choice of fossil phaseout OR removals was always a dumb one. It’s no longer a choice we have

4️⃣ Removals
Carbon removal is controversial – I get it. I wrote my PhD criticising the over-reliance on CDR in many global scenarios.

But in a world of overshoot, removals are a necessity not a choice. We either accept a radical scale-up of removals, or a radical escalation of climate risks.

3️⃣ Methane
Methane is a super pollutant, but it only hangs around in the atmosphere for around ~12 years. That means if we cut methane emissions, then within about a decade, the amount of methane in the air will start falling, and that will help bring temperatures down

2️⃣ Fossil phaseout
Renewable electricity + targeted hydrogen/e-fuels push fossil fuels out of the mix. Not to low levels, but to ZERO.

Sorry Al-Jaber, but you’re wrong 😉 We can, and must, phase out fossil fuels

www.theguardian.com/environment/...

1️⃣ Electricity ⚡
The HPA leans into electrification. Electricity is the future – it’s cheaper, it’s smarter, it’s just fundamentally better than continuing to burn stuff (which is sooooo last century). See @ember-energy.org's great work on this!

Two-thirds of demand comes from electricity by 2050

These curves look pretty scary 😬. How do we actually achieve them? We identify 4 levers, that need to ALL be pulled with the highest possible ambition to deliver this scenario.

If we achieve that, then temperatures would be set to peak at ~1.7ºC – 0.2ºC above the Paris Agreement’s limit.

But by phasing out fossil fuels, cutting methane & scaling up removals, we can bring temperatures back below 1.5ºC pre-2100.

We can still rescue 1.5ºC!

Let’s dive in. First, emissions
❌ We can no longer halve emissions by 2030.
✅ But we can still cut them by ~20%, or 10 GtCO2e
🏃 Post 2030, we need to play catch-up with the IPCC scenarios to make up on lost time
🎯Net-zero dates are accelerated – with NZ CO2 pre-2050, NZ GHGs ~2060

So in this new work, we provide a NEW global scenario to guide climate action. This scenario

✅ Starts from current emissions levels
✅ Tries to minimise overshoot
✅ Does so by focusing on things that actually WORK (renewables + electricity), rather than techno-boondoggles (CCS)

No, I’m convinced that we need to double down on 1.5ºC, not give up on it. But how do we do that?

One problem is the scenarios we’re using to guide action are fast becoming outdated. The last IPCC 1.5ºC scenarios assume emissions fell 25% by 2025, and >40% by 2030. We are WAY off track for this.

Some would say that 1.5ºC is a radical position, and that 2ºC would be a more pragmatic target.

Pragmatic for whom?

Not for small islands. Not for vulnerable ecosystems. Not for the global poor on the frontlines of the crisis.

To accept a world above 1.5ºC is to accept a radically altered world.

Does this mean we should give up on 1.5ºC?

No – 1.5ºC endures as a legal and ethical imperative as we approach, meet and potentially exceed 1.5ºC. See @joerirogelj.bsky.social's great piece on this: bsky.app/profile/joer...

In recent years optimism about 1.5ºC has been hard to find. Temperatures have been breaking records, and we’re currently rocketing forwards 1.5ºC warming at break-neck pace.

Meanwhile, global emissions, rather than falling, are still marching upwards.
www.unep.org/resources/em...

Thanks for sharing Dave. Some stuff I agree with here, but I think it's odd to be arguing against the removal of green levies from industry... AFAIK the Gov is not scrapping the levies, but funding them from elsewhere (general taxation?). Making electricity cheaper for industry is key I would say!