@david_joffe Isn't one of the key benefits of Hydrogen its ability to be stored? Following your argument, wouldn't blending provide a disincentive to developing storage?
@ChiefExecCCC @AnushkaAsthana@DrSimEvans Surely the tax system is not oblivious to money moving between different corporate entities that are part of the same group?
How can companies transition (and be encouraged to transition) if these parts are kept separate?
Have a read if you're interested in how two tiles & a small elevation difference can affect modelled soil temperatures and methane production at low-centred polygon and palsa sites :)
Our paper on modelling permafrost microtopography in a land-surface model was published today 🎉
Thank you to co-authors @semiupsidedown@eleanorjb and others not on twitter!
https://t.co/QFgiwLtIVU
Great talk on how permafrost thaw means an extra half a degree commits future generations to dealing with a whole load more emissions: "Permafrost hasn't signed the Paris agreement".
Excited to be here in Glasgow talking about permafrost, if slightly overwhelmed by my first in person conference in two years being this huge. Doing another similar talk in a minute! Live links on https://t.co/PrscCYJAiH
@RegularEvan@coxypm@JMBecologist I'd argue this was a good thing (see reply thread):
https://t.co/qLYkRe49Ee
(& apologies for not being good at twitter)
I would argue that this is part of what makes net zero targets great!
While indeed it costs little to say, every time it is said it gets harder to go back on. Plan or no plan, even on its own the net zero commitment is powerful for 3 reasons:
(1/7)
…and by this stage, theoretically, there is something to point at for each and every decision the government makes afterwards, even the ones made today.
I would argue that this is part of what makes net zero targets great!
While indeed it costs little to say, every time it is said it gets harder to go back on. Plan or no plan, even on its own the net zero commitment is powerful for 3 reasons:
(1/7)
@coxypm@JMBecologist But that's the thing isn't it? It costs nothing for politicians to *say* they'll go for an ambitious target.
They don't need to actually meet them (in fact, they're unlikely to be in the job when the deadlines approach)
Thus it is *for once* an example of politicians not worrying about distant things being beneficial:
it doesn’t cost much to say, but having been said it doesn’t cost much to employ some people to put together a plan, or some people to scrutinise it…