Rust Never Sleeps / George Morrison🇨🇦
@rustneversleeps.bsky.social
Investment pro here for
• climate science, economics, solutions, policy, investment, impacts
• energy transition
• economics
Big on domain experts/expertise, abundance, potential.
*V* anti- fake experts, poseurs, snark, *esp.* climate-related.
• climate science, economics, solutions, policy, investment, impacts
• energy transition
• economics
Big on domain experts/expertise, abundance, potential.
*V* anti- fake experts, poseurs, snark, *esp.* climate-related.
it's set at supply, as in Liebreich's specs. Fossil = Demand - Clean, so (Clean + Fossil) = Supply = Demand.
November 11, 2025 at 4:24 PM
it's set at supply, as in Liebreich's specs. Fossil = Demand - Clean, so (Clean + Fossil) = Supply = Demand.
What both the Liebreich and Ember - Electrotech narrative/modeling makes more clear/real is one part of the dynamic that makes such a functional form for emissions reduction realistic/plausible.
November 11, 2025 at 12:39 PM
What both the Liebreich and Ember - Electrotech narrative/modeling makes more clear/real is one part of the dynamic that makes such a functional form for emissions reduction realistic/plausible.
... from the so-called "Raupach curves" (example math in this article iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...) or similar is in the early modeling (at least until close to net-negative gets included). These also are (relatively) slow declines (absolute and rate) early, accelerating later (and then slow).
November 11, 2025 at 12:37 PM
... from the so-called "Raupach curves" (example math in this article iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...) or similar is in the early modeling (at least until close to net-negative gets included). These also are (relatively) slow declines (absolute and rate) early, accelerating later (and then slow).
I'm less concerned with projections for final energy demand growth and more with how the simple models can get people familiar with how a plateau in CO₂ emissions can still belie a great deal of success with cumulative emissions.
If you look at most IPCC emissions mitigation models, some math
If you look at most IPCC emissions mitigation models, some math
November 11, 2025 at 12:31 PM
I'm less concerned with projections for final energy demand growth and more with how the simple models can get people familiar with how a plateau in CO₂ emissions can still belie a great deal of success with cumulative emissions.
If you look at most IPCC emissions mitigation models, some math
If you look at most IPCC emissions mitigation models, some math
although, on my X version of Liebreich's model, I mention in the comments the "Electrotech Revolution" work by Ember Energy (also tomorrow's subject on David Roberts podcast), and they have global final energy demand increasing by ~50% through 2100.
ember-energy.org/app/uploads/...
ember-energy.org/app/uploads/...
November 11, 2025 at 11:59 AM
although, on my X version of Liebreich's model, I mention in the comments the "Electrotech Revolution" work by Ember Energy (also tomorrow's subject on David Roberts podcast), and they have global final energy demand increasing by ~50% through 2100.
ember-energy.org/app/uploads/...
ember-energy.org/app/uploads/...
again, true, and every assumption Liebreich makes is subject to countless nuances, etc. but, ultimately, he has global final energy demand slightly more than doubling over next 40 yrs. I think if one presents a model that has materially less than that, it strains credulity at a global level.🤷
November 11, 2025 at 11:49 AM
again, true, and every assumption Liebreich makes is subject to countless nuances, etc. but, ultimately, he has global final energy demand slightly more than doubling over next 40 yrs. I think if one presents a model that has materially less than that, it strains credulity at a global level.🤷
This is entirely true, but the "2% annual growth in *global* final energy demand" in Liebreich's *very* simple model setup likely in effect would be compromised of various jurisdictions and sectors with much lower or even zero growth compensating for others with much higher growth.
Thanks!
Thanks!
November 11, 2025 at 11:25 AM
This is entirely true, but the "2% annual growth in *global* final energy demand" in Liebreich's *very* simple model setup likely in effect would be compromised of various jurisdictions and sectors with much lower or even zero growth compensating for others with much higher growth.
Thanks!
Thanks!
... from IPCC AR6 WGI (Fig SPM.10, iirc).
Volts podcast: substack.com/@drvolts/not...
Liebreich BNEF article Part 1: about.bnef.com/insights/cle...
Part 2: about.bnef.com/insights/cle...
That's about it.
Volts podcast: substack.com/@drvolts/not...
Liebreich BNEF article Part 1: about.bnef.com/insights/cle...
Part 2: about.bnef.com/insights/cle...
That's about it.
November 11, 2025 at 12:55 AM
... from IPCC AR6 WGI (Fig SPM.10, iirc).
Volts podcast: substack.com/@drvolts/not...
Liebreich BNEF article Part 1: about.bnef.com/insights/cle...
Part 2: about.bnef.com/insights/cle...
That's about it.
Volts podcast: substack.com/@drvolts/not...
Liebreich BNEF article Part 1: about.bnef.com/insights/cle...
Part 2: about.bnef.com/insights/cle...
That's about it.
Yes, non-CO₂ and agricultural/land use emissions are omitted. Adjust your own if you want. There are reasons to argue this is pretty close for purposes as well, but, as I say, it's *supposed* to be *simple*.
3. I convert forward cumulative CO₂ emissions to forward temp increases central TCRE...
3. I convert forward cumulative CO₂ emissions to forward temp increases central TCRE...
November 11, 2025 at 12:55 AM
Yes, non-CO₂ and agricultural/land use emissions are omitted. Adjust your own if you want. There are reasons to argue this is pretty close for purposes as well, but, as I say, it's *supposed* to be *simple*.
3. I convert forward cumulative CO₂ emissions to forward temp increases central TCRE...
3. I convert forward cumulative CO₂ emissions to forward temp increases central TCRE...
2. I convert fossil energy to emissions in GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ by just multiplying by 37/70 throughout, reflecting the ~2024 emissions from fossil fuels and industry. This assumes - contra historical - no forward improvements in CO₂ emissions/$GDP, but close enough.
November 11, 2025 at 12:55 AM
2. I convert fossil energy to emissions in GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ by just multiplying by 37/70 throughout, reflecting the ~2024 emissions from fossil fuels and industry. This assumes - contra historical - no forward improvements in CO₂ emissions/$GDP, but close enough.
... the purpose!
About the only things I might want to mention about my implementation:
1. On this plot, (i) energy demand and final energy are assumed equal, (ii) GDP and energy in 2025 are normalized to 100, clean and fossil energy are normalized to initial final energy shares of 30, 70% in 2025.
About the only things I might want to mention about my implementation:
1. On this plot, (i) energy demand and final energy are assumed equal, (ii) GDP and energy in 2025 are normalized to 100, clean and fossil energy are normalized to initial final energy shares of 30, 70% in 2025.
November 11, 2025 at 12:55 AM
... the purpose!
About the only things I might want to mention about my implementation:
1. On this plot, (i) energy demand and final energy are assumed equal, (ii) GDP and energy in 2025 are normalized to 100, clean and fossil energy are normalized to initial final energy shares of 30, 70% in 2025.
About the only things I might want to mention about my implementation:
1. On this plot, (i) energy demand and final energy are assumed equal, (ii) GDP and energy in 2025 are normalized to 100, clean and fossil energy are normalized to initial final energy shares of 30, 70% in 2025.
I am not sure how much time I want to explain the details in my spreadsheet👇 - Michael's explanation two tweets above is so straightforward it takes ~3 minutes to replicate.
Part of its beauty is that it *IS* so simple, over-detailing kind of defeats...
docs.google.com/spreadsheets...
Part of its beauty is that it *IS* so simple, over-detailing kind of defeats...
docs.google.com/spreadsheets...
Liebreich Pragmatic Reset
docs.google.com
November 11, 2025 at 12:55 AM
I am not sure how much time I want to explain the details in my spreadsheet👇 - Michael's explanation two tweets above is so straightforward it takes ~3 minutes to replicate.
Part of its beauty is that it *IS* so simple, over-detailing kind of defeats...
docs.google.com/spreadsheets...
Part of its beauty is that it *IS* so simple, over-detailing kind of defeats...
docs.google.com/spreadsheets...
Too slow?
Well, you can spend your time in the real trying to figure out how to speed it up, or spending less time online explaining that the fossil-fuel curves still haven't bent down, and more explaining, why, in your opinion, clean energy can't achieve Liebreich's assumptions
Well, you can spend your time in the real trying to figure out how to speed it up, or spending less time online explaining that the fossil-fuel curves still haven't bent down, and more explaining, why, in your opinion, clean energy can't achieve Liebreich's assumptions
November 11, 2025 at 12:55 AM
Too slow?
Well, you can spend your time in the real trying to figure out how to speed it up, or spending less time online explaining that the fossil-fuel curves still haven't bent down, and more explaining, why, in your opinion, clean energy can't achieve Liebreich's assumptions
Well, you can spend your time in the real trying to figure out how to speed it up, or spending less time online explaining that the fossil-fuel curves still haven't bent down, and more explaining, why, in your opinion, clean energy can't achieve Liebreich's assumptions
... assumptions (and I am getting to the assumptions, less so the quibbles) but the beauty of the little model is you can see where you'd want to change the assumptions to get the outcome you want to impose.
Liebreich's assumed 5% yr⁻¹ growth in clean energy supply too fast for you?...
Liebreich's assumed 5% yr⁻¹ growth in clean energy supply too fast for you?...
November 11, 2025 at 12:55 AM
... assumptions (and I am getting to the assumptions, less so the quibbles) but the beauty of the little model is you can see where you'd want to change the assumptions to get the outcome you want to impose.
Liebreich's assumed 5% yr⁻¹ growth in clean energy supply too fast for you?...
Liebreich's assumed 5% yr⁻¹ growth in clean energy supply too fast for you?...
... still yields at net-zero for CO₂ emissions from fossil-fuel and industry by ~2066, and a further increase in global surface temperature from 2025-66 of about 0.58°C, ⬋ and ⬊. Which gets you to, ballpark, 2.0°C since pre-industrial.
Now, easy to find particulars to quibble with in the...
Now, easy to find particulars to quibble with in the...
November 11, 2025 at 12:55 AM
... still yields at net-zero for CO₂ emissions from fossil-fuel and industry by ~2066, and a further increase in global surface temperature from 2025-66 of about 0.58°C, ⬋ and ⬊. Which gets you to, ballpark, 2.0°C since pre-industrial.
Now, easy to find particulars to quibble with in the...
Now, easy to find particulars to quibble with in the...
downthread, I'll include the Google Sheets spreadsheet I made, but it takes about 2 minutes using just Michael's written description in ⬋.
Interesting output: given pretty reasonable/simple assumptions (downthread), a seemingly modest near-term fossil fuel decline ⬊ and ⬊⬊..
Interesting output: given pretty reasonable/simple assumptions (downthread), a seemingly modest near-term fossil fuel decline ⬊ and ⬊⬊..
November 11, 2025 at 12:55 AM
downthread, I'll include the Google Sheets spreadsheet I made, but it takes about 2 minutes using just Michael's written description in ⬋.
Interesting output: given pretty reasonable/simple assumptions (downthread), a seemingly modest near-term fossil fuel decline ⬊ and ⬊⬊..
Interesting output: given pretty reasonable/simple assumptions (downthread), a seemingly modest near-term fossil fuel decline ⬊ and ⬊⬊..
Reposted by Rust Never Sleeps / George Morrison🇨🇦
One important finding for me was the overwhelming negative imagery that people have about climate change, when we asked an open-ended question about the first image that came to mind. We're missing positive imagery and narratives about the transition and climate action.
October 27, 2025 at 1:31 PM
One important finding for me was the overwhelming negative imagery that people have about climate change, when we asked an open-ended question about the first image that came to mind. We're missing positive imagery and narratives about the transition and climate action.
cross net zero.
In the case of SSP2-4.5, emissions are still at about 10 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ in year 2100 (so ~75% decrease from present) but concentrations appear to have already peaked (although plot is cut off at this point).
In the case of SSP2-4.5, emissions are still at about 10 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ in year 2100 (so ~75% decrease from present) but concentrations appear to have already peaked (although plot is cut off at this point).
October 24, 2025 at 3:00 PM
cross net zero.
In the case of SSP2-4.5, emissions are still at about 10 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ in year 2100 (so ~75% decrease from present) but concentrations appear to have already peaked (although plot is cut off at this point).
In the case of SSP2-4.5, emissions are still at about 10 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ in year 2100 (so ~75% decrease from present) but concentrations appear to have already peaked (although plot is cut off at this point).
Here's some examples.
On the left, various CO₂ emissions scenarios from IPCC AR6 WGI SPM Fig. SPM.5 (a).
On the right, corresponding CO₂ concentration evolutions from IPCC AR6 WGI TS Box TS.5, Fig. 1 (e)
For both SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6, concentrations peak and begin falling before emissions...
On the left, various CO₂ emissions scenarios from IPCC AR6 WGI SPM Fig. SPM.5 (a).
On the right, corresponding CO₂ concentration evolutions from IPCC AR6 WGI TS Box TS.5, Fig. 1 (e)
For both SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6, concentrations peak and begin falling before emissions...
October 24, 2025 at 2:57 PM
Here's some examples.
On the left, various CO₂ emissions scenarios from IPCC AR6 WGI SPM Fig. SPM.5 (a).
On the right, corresponding CO₂ concentration evolutions from IPCC AR6 WGI TS Box TS.5, Fig. 1 (e)
For both SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6, concentrations peak and begin falling before emissions...
On the left, various CO₂ emissions scenarios from IPCC AR6 WGI SPM Fig. SPM.5 (a).
On the right, corresponding CO₂ concentration evolutions from IPCC AR6 WGI TS Box TS.5, Fig. 1 (e)
For both SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6, concentrations peak and begin falling before emissions...
... followed by an emissions decline of, say, 3% yr⁻¹, concentrations roll over and begin falling well before 70% declines in CO₂ emissions, iirc. (and I am running this starting at present day atmospheric concentrations).
Anyway, I am going to pull the IPCC plots showing this.
Anyway, I am going to pull the IPCC plots showing this.
October 24, 2025 at 2:25 PM
... followed by an emissions decline of, say, 3% yr⁻¹, concentrations roll over and begin falling well before 70% declines in CO₂ emissions, iirc. (and I am running this starting at present day atmospheric concentrations).
Anyway, I am going to pull the IPCC plots showing this.
Anyway, I am going to pull the IPCC plots showing this.
Depends on what you mean by extreme. I am pretty sure each of RCP's 1.9, 2.6 and 4.5 exhibit this, and I think even above that (but somewhat moot for purposes here). Also although there are many models, the simple Bern carbon module, if you run it up to an emissions peak by, say, 1% increase yr⁻¹...
October 24, 2025 at 2:22 PM
Depends on what you mean by extreme. I am pretty sure each of RCP's 1.9, 2.6 and 4.5 exhibit this, and I think even above that (but somewhat moot for purposes here). Also although there are many models, the simple Bern carbon module, if you run it up to an emissions peak by, say, 1% increase yr⁻¹...
... the models have concentrations rolling over before 70% reduction, but it's a good ballpark for illustration.)]
October 24, 2025 at 1:15 PM
... the models have concentrations rolling over before 70% reduction, but it's a good ballpark for illustration.)]
... to doubting what they *think* they've been told about the relationship between concentrations and temperatures, or the need to continue to reduce emissions if concentrations are already falling at "only" 70%¹ reductions *unless* they've been primed to expect this behaviour in advance. ¹(I think
October 24, 2025 at 1:14 PM
... to doubting what they *think* they've been told about the relationship between concentrations and temperatures, or the need to continue to reduce emissions if concentrations are already falling at "only" 70%¹ reductions *unless* they've been primed to expect this behaviour in advance. ¹(I think