Sreeja Jaiswal

[Tejal Kanitkar @KanitkarT]

Our paper on a new modeling approach for climate policy, that foregrounds energy and climate equity is now published and available at https://t.co/ZzJRaI7jtV It is a significant departure from current IAMs. The model can be downloaded at https://t.co/zfZinJhlIl

[Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs]

International climate policy must not push Africa towards carbon taxation - we argue in this Nature CC comment. Carbon taxation certainly doesn't curb current emissions, it's unlikely to curb future emissions - but it almost certainly hurts the poor. https://t.co/eZLhJeQQBG

[Nitin Sethi @nit_set]

RealityCheck: The simple narrative of 'good ecologists versus bad politicians' resurfaced in response to Kerala landslides. But the true story of Western Ghats Ecology reports shows everyone in shades of grey. The b&w version is a clickbait. @reporters_co https://t.co/wKZl9WVeNJ

[Tejal Kanitkar @KanitkarT]

Tomorrow is the last date for applying!

[Tejal Kanitkar @KanitkarT]

A new scenario framework for equitable and climate-compatible futures is now published and can be accessed at https://t.co/XaYGUsHZUa.
We demonstrate a modelling approach and scenario framework for global burden-sharing, that foregrounds questions of climate and energy justice.

[T. Jayaraman @tjayaraman]

Important and timely article -- but there are some key loopholes and the danger of "jumping only halfway across the well."
In particular the headline takeaway: "Labelling emissions pathways by single actors using long-term temperature goals (e.g. ‘1.5°C’) is questionable and should be avoided." is especially problematic.
The solution -- as we have long argued, the only option, is to continually monitor to what extent individual countries are taking up from, or overdrawing beyond, their fair share of the global carbon budget.
Let me explain.
1. @HarryWinkler and Frank Lecoq correctly point out that when individual countries, or , even worse, regions and individual multinationals, unilaterally claim to be "1.5 deg aligned" or "2 deg aligned", such claims are bogus. This is absolutely correct and @KanitkarT and myself also have always said so.
2. What they don't tell us is what the rest of the world is doing. So their claims to be aligned to some temperature goal can only be understood in the light of those assumptions.
3. This is because temperature increase is essentially controlled by cumulative emissions. So any single claim, on whether it is aligned or not to the temperature goal, can only be judged in relation to the share of the global carbon budget that is claimed, and assumptions of how much will be left to the rest.
3. It is not only countries and organisations/institutions but also academic authors and scientists who make use of such temp-aligned language and should know better than to do so!! @KanitkarT and I have also said this, and so has @HarryWinkler I am sure, but now it is put down in print.
4. Not only us, but the entire LMDC fraternity as Governments, has been saying this as well, individually and collectively, though perhaps in different language. Most importantly, they have steadfastly ignored the claims of what developed countries say they are doing. Instead of which they put down what they think developed countries should be doing. And this is exactly on the lines of carrying Harald's arguments logically forward, though not in the same language.
5. So far so good -- but the recommendation that all temperature labelling should be given up is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The danger is that this will carry greater leverage since @HarryWinkler is an acclaimed co-architect of the Global Stocktake process in the actual implementation of its Technical Dialogue.
6. Consider the NDC of the US, where, ridiculously, it claims that its NDC emission reduction target is fair and ambitious because instead of emissions reducing in a straight line till 2050, they actually reduce faster. Now this is laughably absurd a claim, that reducing faster than linear is ambitious and fair.
7. But we need a metric of debunking this claim AND we need a way of saying what they should do. Unfortunately, the paper leaves with no options on both of those necessities.
8. This is particularly dangerous for the second GST, since then we are left with no metric of discerning individual responsibility. Who is to do how much, and what is their fair and equitable share, in the light of the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, is a question that does have to be answered.
And as many genuinely bewildered citizens would ask, are countries doing what they should?
9. For developing countries this is especially unsatisfying given their challenge of getting adequate carbon space for sustainable development. To be told that there is no metric for discerning what the rich should be doing is not helpful.
10. Plus like the unfortunate ruling of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, this will mean a call for all countries to basically "do as much as they can"...And we all know how far that will take us!!
11. What is the solution? As the LMDC fraternity of countries and many others have argued (including @KanitkarT and yours truly), the only way is to monitor what is the share of the global carbon budget that the individual country is taking up. The pathway itself in all its detail is not that important, but it is the cumulative emissions of CO2 that is the true indicator.
12.⁠ ⁠For developed countries, that have universally overdrawn beyond their fair share, it is a matter of the most rapid reduction possible and moving towards increasing negative emissions. Monitoring the progress of this, or charting this progression would be the way of determining whether they are temp aligned to some particular temperature.
13. We all know where @HarryWinkler and Frank Lecoq's argument begins and that is appreciated, but where it ends is less than helpful and a positive danger. I look forward to the authors urgently fixing this problem!!

@KevinClimate @n_thanki @chilledasad100 @TasneemEssop @harjeet11 @bforboseman @3rdworldnetwork @moefcc @KanitkarT @sciencebwoy @JMauskar @JRBhatt60 @doreenstabinsky @ysaheb @victormenotti @KarthaSivan @AthanasiouTom @Sreejaiswal

[Tejal Kanitkar @KanitkarT]

1/4 This is a very good development. We have been raising this issue since the scenario details were made public by the IPCC after the publication of the AR6 working group reports. The paper quoted in the article can be found here. https://t.co/2YlDq5lh4C

[T. Jayaraman @tjayaraman]

We are delighted to see our colleagues at AGNES Africa @AGNESAfrica join us authors (@KanitkarT, Akhil Mythri, @Sreejaiswal and Aravindhan Nagarajan @sciencebwoy ), negotiator colleagues from India (@moefcc ) and our other colleagues from the LMDC countries (@3rdworldnetwork , @bforboseman ) in expressing their concerns at the lack of equity, the failure to address the challenges and aspirations of Africa and the Global South, and the need to generate scenarios and modelling frameworks and techniques that are commensurate with the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
Apart from our paper, https://t.co/MSJwk4MSHW, titled "Equity Assessment of global mitigation pathways in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report", we look forward to being joined by more work of this kind, deconstructing particular sectors, details of energy access from these scenarios and so on. In this regard, we would like, as authors, to make the following observations:
1. It is our conviction that equity and CBDR&RC are not normative values extraneous to the science of climate action but are actually essential elements of effective climate action. There is a large body of evidence that shows the connection between the neglect of these principles and the failure to undertake adequate climate action.
2. In the same manner, development , that leaves no one behind, is essential to effectively meeting the challenge of global warming. This includes, as you have rightly emphasised, the convergence of energy access and clean energy transition. This cannot be achieved by denying the Global South, access to adequate fossil fuel resources, within their fair share of the global carbon budget, that is essential to ramp up renewable energy capacity itself.
3. Diversity of models and modelling frameworks is essential. A large number of scenarios that are based on a handful of models with inequitable assumptions do not represent diversity.
4. While we critique the existing models, we need, as part of the community of Global South scientists, to develop alternative frameworks that begins with energy and climate equity and work their way down to the details. In this regard @KanitkarT, Ankita Ranjan and myself have a proposal, available at https://t.co/y8pDf7TXpV, that we would draw your attention. The paper is self-explantorily titled, "A New Scenario Framework for Equitable and Climate-Compatible Futures." We look forward to your comments and further such proposals from you and colleagues elsewhere.
5. We believe that we need to ramp up networking amongst ourselves to pursue the goal of equitable and objective scenarios and modelling techniques and frameworks.
6. We share very much your concern on the urgent necessity of equitable considerations of land-use n these scenarios. On this, apart from our paper, we also refer you to our colleagues' work ( @sreejaiswal, @sciencebwoy and Akhil Mythri). https://t.co/G10T7aUHp5 , titled "Projecting a food insecure world: Equity implications of land-based mitigation in IPCC mitigation pathways."

We look forward to progress along these lines, emphasizing the exploration, not of pathway of triage, but pathways directed to the well-being of all, meeting the needs and aspirations of the global South.

@KanitkarT @JMauskar @moefcc @byadavbjp @JRBhatt60 @ajay_raghava @Ninad_India @Amit_Narang @ambtstirumurti @MEAIndia @minalpathak1 @_chandnisingh @JPvanYpersele @ysaheb @DianaUrge @HarryWinkler @KevinClimate @bforboseman @chilledasad100 @n_thanki @victormenotti @3rdworldnetwork @doctorsoumya @mssrf @MadhuraFAS @fasagristudies @malakalnory @CGIAR

[Tejal Kanitkar @KanitkarT]

Our paper on the Equity Assessment of Global Mitigation Pathways in @IPCC_CH AR6 now published in @Climate_Policy. Scenarios project continued poverty for the global South further exacerbated by unequal mitigation burdens on developing countries. https://t.co/HIxa4nttn4

[T. Jayaraman @tjayaraman]

My usual post-COP debrief on COP28 at MSSRF on Thursday December 21 2023 at 11.15 am. If you are able to come, there's tea at 11 am😃
https://t.co/basyF6YHos
Meeting ID: 885 6409 3085
Passcode: 808471
@3rdworldnetwork @JMauskar @JRBhatt60 @NIAS_India @KanitkarT @KevinClimate

[Sreeja Jaiswal @Sreejaiswal]

@mtonykurian @azimpremjiuniv @MrinaliniJha22 Congratulations and all the best! 😀

[Foundation for Agrarian Studies @fasagristudies]

@tjayaraman , K Aparajay, @DevshaliCharu & @Sreejaiswal recently published a paper in the special issue of @epw_in - Review of Rural Affairs, that critically reviews the idea of Greenhouse Gas mitigation related to agriculture in India.
#GreenHouseGases
#CarbonEmissions
1/2

[T. Jayaraman @tjayaraman]

Prof. M. S. Swaminthan's many awards included the most prized one of all, the respect and affection of millions of Indian farmers, in his lifetime, for bringing his science to their service and welfare and that of farmers all over the world.

[Tejal Kanitkar @KanitkarT]

1/n Pre-print: proposal and demonstration of a new modeling framework. A departure from the IAM-SSP framework. Quantitative assessments for climate-compatible futures are possible without assuming that these can and/or will only be modeled using IAMs https://t.co/88Vy0p0heN

[rathin roy @EmergingRoy]

The focus of climate public finance has turned from grants for climate and development action to history-blind taxation. This is just another attempt to get developing countries to pay for a climate crisis they did not create.

[Sreeja Jaiswal @Sreejaiswal]

carbon budget are in some respect outcomes prioritising feasibility over equity and fairness in climate action. This thread by @tjayaraman unpacks the latest such scientific advise by EU scientists. 1/2

[Sreeja Jaiswal @Sreejaiswal]

Developed countries have always sidelined equity. Policy advise from developed countries, decisions, and academic work, where feasibility trumps equity in climate change is nothing new. Flexible mechanisms in Kyoto Protocol, the move to NDCs & now in dealing with remaining 1/

[T. Jayaraman @tjayaraman]

EU SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD ON CLIMATE CHANGE accepts that equity considerations should be based on national fair share of global carbon budgets. India's own fair-share-of-budget deniers should take note at least now!!
https://t.co/7YqZZUGmBc

[ClimateDad @dad_climate]

This is an excellent phrase - "hidden in plain sight" These scenarios are all over the SPM - I've seen activists share them (oblivious to their meaning) while the same people call for climate justice.

[Sreeja Jaiswal @Sreejaiswal]

@JKSteinberger @tjayaraman @BjoernSoergel @EdwardByers Soregel et. al IMP-SP (1 scenario among 1000s IPCC assesses) is based on https://t.co/sAVcsXGTVE & even this scenario doesn't project SDG goal of 0 hunger till 2050 in contradiction to the paper's title "A Sustainable development pathway for climate action within UN 2030Agenda"

[The India Energy Hour @tieh_podcast]

How can we ensure that developing countries' rights and principles of equity are incorporated in decarbonization pathways?

@KanitkarT & @DrTongia share their insights in our recent episode 🎙️

Link--> https://t.co/vfgeETtIqg

#TIEHPodcast #ClimateEquity #NetZero