rishpardikar.bsky.social
Environment and climate reporter covering science, law & policy | Drilled, The Hindu, African Arguments, Article-14, AGU's Eos
📍India
207 posts
3,133 followers
208 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
:) thanks, Ketan
comment in response to
post
Actually I don't bother to engage much with trolls who don't/ can't read. There are multiple criticisms of Biden policy, including the second paragraph "Contradicting the Biden administration's own moves on LNG..." and also of the DOE study itself like how it underestimates methane leaks
comment in response to
post
Meanwhile now Europe is apparently considering long-term LNG contracts to appease US and/or manage power prices. Proposal reportedly canvasses Japan model, ie govt directly investing in overseas gas production (Japan is now biggest funder of US LNG). 7/ www.politico.eu/article/eu-f...
comment in response to
post
Co-published with Rolling Stone www.rollingstone.com/politics/pol...
comment in response to
post
"as soon as you label your pathway, say ‘1.5°C’, you not only make a statement about what you are going to emit over the duration of that pathway, but also about what the rest of the world emits until 2100. So you are de facto making a statement about the distribution of emissions over time & space"
comment in response to
post
A good caveat though is to ask what exactly does 1.5C-aligned mean
drilled.media/news/1.5-ali...
comment in response to
post
Finally, our review article is out and it's open access!
wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
comment in response to
post
Here's the story on Drilled's site as well: drilled.media/news/DOE-LNG...
comment in response to
post
I had seen the summaries. Will check the verbatim records. Thank you!
comment in response to
post
Holding power to account is what journalism is. But in climate, praising the powerful is journalism now?
comment in response to
post
Worst form this takes is when rich countries bound to always fall short of equitable demands are praised. I mean, if it's a poor country taking on ambitious action then maybe there is something to report about. Like the challenges. But praising powerful rich countries is the opposite of journalism
comment in response to
post
Nothing new, TBH. It's a trend in climate reporting to not bother with accountability and just praise every RE development and EV sale without asking questions about high consumption societies, what an equitable burden of climate action means for rich countries or even displacement of fossil fuels
comment in response to
post
Stories about wind farm development are barely existent - it's a problem
comment in response to
post
There is strong peoples' resistance to India's counter plan to build a large dam. There has been a lot of reporting on this. But I see nothing from China/ Tibet side
indianexpress.com/article/long...
comment in response to
post
Yes! Just reading about plans for the Yarlung Tsangpo hydropower project & its mind boggling scale. Seems utterly implausible to claim no major environmental impact. & what about displacement, socio-cultural & geopolitical impact? www.scmp.com/news/china/s...
comment in response to
post
Climate reporting is also environment and people reporting
comment in response to
post
The report is about a study that showed how plan could result in reduced rainfall in some already-arid regions. A first-of-its-kind study that assessed atmospheric impacts. Other studies have assessed impacts like on aquatic ecosystems & reduced sediment flow to deltas
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
comment in response to
post
If you were wondering why it is rubbish, please see: mdmadhusudan.medium.com/missing-the-...
comment in response to
post
💯 but how do you convince presidencies who fear diplomatic reputation damage?
comment in response to
post
Also, a general/ academic understanding of climate change is different from, say, a farmer in India who recognises that rainfall patterns are not like what they used to be. So, how would you rate an understanding of climate change that is limited to knowing about its impacts?
comment in response to
post
The sample size here is ~7k. I have read many of Yale's earlier surveys (and criticised them) where the sample size is again ~5k. And this for a country with 1.4 billion people. Good to not glean too much from this alone
comment in response to
post
"supposedly" because the assumption that demand is the sole driver of supply is questionable