Yeah, saying that Climate Trace says emissions are 74 gt-CO2 per year is not correct. It’s about 60-61.

Yep. Buildings only emit about 5-6% of emissions directly.

And counting the electricity used in buildings adds maybe another 13%. And materials and waste from building construction could add maybe another 10%. So, at most, building systems are under 30% or so.

We’re coming to San Francisco this week!

Please come see us!

Okay. Hey, @hearmap.news — this is a mistake. Climate Trace emissions are not 74 Gt. They're around 60. Someone goofed.

When we talk about climate change, a lot of weird looking numbers can get tossed around. Metric tons, millions of tons, and so on.

How do we make sense of this, and put it all in context?

Welcome to “Carbon in Context” by Project Drawdown. It helps you see the bigger picture.

Check it out!

I don't think they actually do that anymore…At least guys like Elon don't.

It’s been replaced by ego.

In our next Drawdown Ignite webinar, Matt Scott sits down with author and climate leader Katharine Wilkinson, Ph.D., to talk about her upcoming book, Climate Wayfinding. A conversation about moving from climate ache to meaningful action.

🔗 https://bit.ly/4tew0Sb
📅 April 29, 1 PM EDT

#ClimateAction

I know some people think they're corny, but I like Rotary Clubs.

And their “4 Way Test” should really be used more often. Imagine if CEOs & politicians asked:

Is it the TRUTH?

Is it FAIR to all concerned?

Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?

Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

Climate Change Concern Near Its High Point in U.S. The 44% of U.S. adults who currently worry "a great deal" about climate change or global warming is near its 46% high point from 2020.

US elites decided, like a school of fish, that climate concern is old, boring, "woke," square, not hip & popular any more. As usual, it was based almost entirely on internal elite dynamics. It had nothing to do with the actual public, which is more concerned than ever.

We’re coming to San Francisco this week!

Please come see us!

But I can assure you all of the emissions estimates are around ~60 Gt-CO2eq on the GWP100 standard.

I just read the Speed & Scale website update, and it makes no sense whatsoever. I think they made a fairly big mistake here, and double-counted emissions, or maybe switched to a 20-year basis sometimes and not others? It's hard to tell. But it's incorrect.

Yeah, just confirmed: Climate Trace estimates 2025 emissions at 60.63 Gt-CO2eq on GWP100 — the same standard used by the IPCC (and nearly everyone else).

There is no change. Emissions are at about 59-60 Gt-CO2eq and have been basically flat (within the error bar) for several years.

Uh, the emissions *are* about 60 Gt-CO2e on a GWP100 basis. Climate Trace agrees with that.

I wonder if they're mixing and matching GWP20 and GWP100 numbers there?

A lot of engagement-farming wannabe weather influencers out there trying to convince you they know more than NOAA's Climate Prediction Center:
www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/ana...

If you think BECCS (using wood as an electricity source, hoping to capture carbon) will save us, you should really read this paper.

Ummm. I’ve never seen thatt. But I live in the US.

When we talk about climate change, a lot of weird looking numbers can get tossed around. Metric tons, millions of tons, and so on.

How do we make sense of this, and put it all in context?

Welcome to “Carbon in Context” by Project Drawdown. It helps you see the bigger picture.

Check it out!

Created by Project Drawdown and backed up with the latest science, Carbon in Context converts raw emissions data into comparisons that actually resonate with audiences.

Clear the air and start using Carbon in Context today: drawdown.org/carbon-in-context

#climateaction

We’re coming to San Francieco this week!

And after seeing Palantir’s “manifesto” today, I really wonder about the moral compass (or lack thereof) of some business leaders…

Power without accountability: The Palantir manifesto The problems with our tech philosopher kings

New, from me: Take the Palantir manifesto seriously, if not literally.
It reveals that our tech philosopher kings want public money, but without public accountability. This creates a dilemma for governments unaligned with its techno-fascist vision. 🧵
donmoynihan.substack.com/p/palantir-w...

When I see the big AI companies, for example, or the social media giants, I wonder if anyone asked these questions…

I know some people think they're corny, but I like Rotary Clubs.

And their “4 Way Test” should really be used more often. Imagine if CEOs & politicians asked:

Is it the TRUTH?

Is it FAIR to all concerned?

Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?

Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

If you think BECCS (using wood as an electricity source, hoping to capture carbon) will save us, you should really read this paper.

That's because the accounting rules for greenhouse gases records them at the point of origin. So when electricity is produced, it's counted in electricity — not a building. Same with materials, which are counted in industry.

I mean people who work on climate as part of their job. Those audiences are mostly on those platforms.

Here are some additional breakdowns of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks.

Do you want to see the "big picture" on climate change?

Here it is.

Emissions are on the left, and include CO2, CH4, N2O, and f-gases. Natural CO2 sinks (from healthy forests & oceans) are on the right. And carbon removal, what little there is, is on the right, too. All expressed as GWP100.

This the break down by gas, by method of production, etc.