I think we’re stuck with this - both because the UNFCCC is not going to change easily, because we’re not going to create an alternative multilateral forum, and because we can’t do without multilateralism (though we need pluri-, mini-, bi- and unilateral approaches too)

(This technique has been used several times since 2012, with Parties even to some extent relying on being ignored so they could express strong views without actually killing agreement. But this creates the risk of ambiguity and misunderstanding, which occurred this year.)

The problem is that a consensus is needed to move away from consensus! And if anything, I think this year’s scratchy final events have probably narrowed the scope for future Presidencies to finesse disagreements by pretending not to be aware that a Party is unhappy.

Some of my best work comes out of procrasti-activity!

Will the Big 4 get agreed (and, uh, what are they?)? Will new abatement commitments take a big enough bite out of warming? WHERE WILL COP31 BE HELD? You can’t possibly know without listening!
(We don’t know either, but we have a high quality of not knowing)

Featuring Carbon Brief’s @JoshGabbatiss as our guest COP-knower!

High levels of sulphur pollution at low altitudes: clearly dreadful
But an experiment that’s already been run, so relevant to the crazypants-but-who-knows world of geoengineering

If there’s another takeout I don’t know what it might be!

Ie are we more ok (or not!) with spraying crap in the stratosphere because of the experience with higher pollution at low levels?
- do we think we’ve already experienced whatever circulatory / hydrological changes we’d get?
- is replacing lost pollution cooling an easier decision than bigger reaches

Reducing direct sulphur pollution impacts on people is a very good thing, definitely worth doing. The warming side effect is a worry though. If there’s an action upshot it’s probably grist for the climate intervention/ SRM discourse:

Also this episode:
UNSG says all is lost. No he doesn’t!

Chaos Trivia after action report!

Another rant about data centres!

(OUT NOW is a bit rich, I should have posted this hours ago. But I’m scrambling to get to Belém, so…)

The underlying paper is here: www.nature.com/articles/s41...
, ‘Engineering and logistical concerns add practical limitations to stratospheric aerosol injection strategies’ published in Nature and authored by Miranda Hack, V. Faye McNeill, Dan Steingart and Gernot Wagner.

Would be interested in your take on the substance of these - on my initial read the removal of “accord with” looks potentially quite consequential, but also maybe not; and I’m not confident in my grasp of the context for most of the announcement!

Do “fuels” include transport, or just home heating stuff?

This reminded me that I once got an email from a prominent climate denier whose signature block included (with malevolent irony) the slogan “Stop Continental Drift!”; some worldviews stubbornly refuse to be reformed