Read on Twitter
What IR & pol sci say on climate & decarbonization is mostly: 1) narrow UNFCCC focus (the classical policy field 'climate / energy policy'); & 2) a generic mix of different tech & econ angles ('how tech will save us'). Example of the latter here in FA. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2020-04-13/paths-net-zero?fa_package=1125847 1/2
Inaccuracies in that piece re tech, regulation & even basic science but worth reading (self-test: if nothing stands out, you're well adjusted to the generic pol sci language on climate / decarbonization).
This piece is better & should give you access. https://twitter.com/n_thanki/status/1250366109490044928?s=20 2/2
This piece is better & should give you access. https://twitter.com/n_thanki/status/1250366109490044928?s=20 2/2
A science inaccuracy merits pointing out:
"aviation—which makes up only 2% of global emissions but is growing rapidly & creates condensation
trails in the sky that double 
its warming effect—"
couple of things wrong here. David G Victor is considered expert on this
. 3/2
"aviation—which makes up only 2% of global emissions but is growing rapidly & creates condensation
trails in the sky that double its warming effect—"couple of things wrong here. David G Victor is considered expert on this
. 3/2
oh and climate clubs will save us no more than tech, sorry Nordhaus. great literature in this thread for all you nerds: https://twitter.com/greenprofgreen/status/1250418808050810880?s=20 4/2
