wflamb.bsky.social
Climate policy researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. I work on emissions trends, policy evaluation, carbon dioxide removal and climate obstruction. Scot in Deutschland. https://lambwf.github.io/
90 posts
6,485 followers
2,351 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Thanks Diana! I added it to this page with some other resources: lambwf.github.io/Discourses-o...
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/wfla...
comment in response to
post
Thats a good article though, thanks! Do you know what explains the revisions? New activity data? Better emission factors? More processes included?
comment in response to
post
A question I ask myself daily
comment in response to
post
It strikes me that this is an interesting political issue as well as a technical one. There are obvious incentives in favour of the inventory definition (more removals!), but it has historical aspects too (who has deforested vs. who did not). Someone should write about it!!
comment in response to
post
Here is a minimal explanation from the gap report. For more info see essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/... or www.nature.com/articles/s41... or @giacgrassi.bsky.social !
comment in response to
post
The 2023 inventory has not been published yet. We'll find out sometime this year I guess.
comment in response to
post
Agree. And two years in a row - can almost do some trend analysis!
comment in response to
post
Even the Vatican!
(Those industry process emissions are HFCs from fridges and aircon btw).
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
To compare, a few other countries doing a top job with their submissions, despite lower national incomes and/or arguably less well staffed statistical offices...
comment in response to
post
Heres what happens when you have a major wildfire event and still account for it in your inventory:
Portugal 2017 (~18MtCO2)
comment in response to
post
Presumably re-growth after prior fire events. I need to do some more digging about how these are estimated in practice, though.
And yeah, good point about "natural". There are many unresolved issues there... here is a box we wrote in the UNEP Gap Report 2024.
comment in response to
post
If you ask for co-financing, your scheme is for established scientists in permanent positions, not for "young scientists" taking their "first steps to independence" etc.
comment in response to
post
It being less work next year is indeed my big hope 😅
comment in response to
post
maybe we should compare
comment in response to
post
To be used with caveats, as pointed out on the Zenodo page.
I'll check the UNFCCC website now and then and add countries as they submit their reports.
Any help with validation and/or feedback on the format would be appreciated!
comment in response to
post
hoo boy, what have i started
comment in response to
post
Here is a first version: github.com/lambwf/Tidy-...
Any feedback welcome!
comment in response to
post
Me too... I was confused about it for 0.5 seconds as I reached for the delete button.
comment in response to
post
The CCC is quite comprehensive on both those issues, see e.g. Fig 1.9 www.theccc.org.uk/publication/...
Note that consumption emissions change the magnitude but not the trend in the past 15 years - the UK has still managed to decarbonise its power sector very quickly
comment in response to
post
Sorry, I do not know.
comment in response to
post
plus this www.wri.org/insights/den...
comment in response to
post
Thanks! :)
comment in response to
post
I was an AR6 chapter scientist!