I don’t think that @JamesGDyke piece is a great article, as it has no analysis of *power*, and has been widely cited as being anti-net zero (so isn’t a clear piece of writing). But Glen’s summary below, of endless procrastination, makes a lot of sense, BUT.... https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🧵" title="Thread" aria-label="Emoji: Thread"> https://twitter.com/peters_glen/status/1386944060921946113">https://twitter.com/peters_gl...

...Finally we are talking, 30 years on, of short term cuts (at US summit last week) and actually getting to zero emissions by 2050, commensurate with the science of keeping warming to about 1.5C (given uncertainties).

This has only occurred due to activists, allies and vulnerable countries. It’s them versus the fossil industrial complex. So it’s very odd to centre a science niche of Integrated Assessment Models as important. Politics, money and power matter more than scientific papers.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/09/16/net-zero-story-target-will-shape-future/">https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/09/1... Two other things, we are talking net zero not because of fossil fuel interests, but a very well connected woman of colour activist-lawyer. Some of the story is here:

And there is IMHO a serious scientific scandal that scientists basically ignored vulnerable countries and social movement demands for work on 1.5C until it became ‘official’ in Paris. I wrote about this here: https://www.nature.com/news/the-paris-agreement-has-solved-a-troubling-problem-1.19774">https://www.nature.com/news/the-...

In the Paris climate negotiations, I was lucky to have a ringside seat as a science advisor to an African delegation. Some really dangerous draft agreement texts covering ‘net zero’ were rejected, what we got was better than the others, hard won by progressive forces in the talks

In essence the terrain has shifted with net zero by 2050, but not the substance. Those whose power or wealth is impacted will place obstacles, exploit loopholes etc. But at least now we are agreed on a scientifically robust commitment in line with what vulnerable countries need.

And of course scientists need to fearlessly call out the scams of net zero, but without throwing out the need for zero emissions to stabilize the climate (which means a bit of negative emissions). Eg https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/03/climate-crisis-carbon-accounting-tricks-big-finance">https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp...