Good that Fridays for Future activists start dealing more and more with the nitty-gritty details of EU #climate policymaking. But with several factual errors and questionable claims in this article, they are risking their credibility.
A short thread [1/n] #EUClimateLaw
You can of course criticize EU #climate policy for not being ambitious enough, but claiming that "the EU is cheating with numbers" needs to be backed up with very strong arguments.
[2/n] #EUClimateLaw
Let's start with FFF authors' core argument that EU is cheating because the 55% are counted from 1990 onwards not from 2018
The EU has never claimed otherwise. 1990 has always been the base year for EU headline #climate targets (as for many others in #UNFCCC)
[3/n] #EUClimateLaw
The 2nd argument is more credible. Not including these emission sources is certainly problematic. But it's not 'cheating' by EU, it's standard #UNFCCC accounting. So why blame the EU?
(plus, consumption-based accounting isn't straightforward, ask @Peters_Glen)
[4/n] #EUClimateLaw
3rd one is tricky, but nevertheless incorrect to claim that including sinks reduces effort >5 % points, even if Bert Metz said so
3 wks ago, I myself miscalculated initially. Effect is ~2%, as now often reported
[5/n] #EUclimatelaw
You can follow @Oliver_Geden.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: