California calculates the carbon intensity of all sources of crude that are sold in the state. Canada supplies some of the highest carbon emitting crude, nearly 33% higher than CA average. Canada seems to have some of the dirtiest oil in the world.

For all the focus on Europe and energy security, 70% of global LNG is sold to non-European countries. At these price levels, it would be insane for any developing country to *increase* their reliance on imported LNG for anything other than their high value and essential needs.

These are both dumb arguments. "Policy X is good because companies I dislike oppose it" "Policy X is bad because companies I dislike favor it" Whether a policy helps to address climate crisis should be based on its merits, not on who supports or opposes it.

One of the most inexplicable ideas I see is that the US will be a clean tech manufacturing super power (ok, possible!) and will then sell it to the developing world. This is highly unlikely to happen at scale, simply on economics. Need a more nuanced approach to clean trade.

Consultants, economists, media personalities, pundits, campaign professionals, PhDs on Twitter today blaming each other for being out of touch with the working class

What is the point of analysis like this? Is it to force companies to pay for equivalent CDR? Is to make them feel guilty so they see the error of their ways? How does this help reduce emissions today? I'm tired of responding to BS that has zero relevance to climate action.

🚨We have a new study that I believe truly pushes the boundary of supply chain #carbon #accounting: we developed an LNG lifecycle assessment model that tracked how gas moves from a well to an export terminal by analyzing gas transactions. #LCA #LNG

A new world requires new and nimble approaches to solve problems. Measurement informed, dynamic, and high-resolution carbon accounting is the future. My team has been hard at work to change decades of precedence within the lifecycle assessment & industrial ecology community!

This isn't surprising. Exxon is betting big on lithium mining in AR + CO2 sequestration in the Gulf of Mexico. They are ahead of their peers in *actually* planning for a transition. Adding uncertainty by withdrawing from Paris Agreement or repealing IRA will be bad for Exxon!

1. This is true! The researchers were developing and validating a neurobiological model of PTSD, which could be used both to screen for risk and to develop pharmacological treatments for the condition. You can read it for yourself: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC64…

I urge everyone to read the Court's thoughtful reasoning in this case: 1) Addressing warming is a human right, so Shell has obligation to reduce GHGs 2) 50% reduction by 2030 in Scope 1/2 is valid 3) Legally & scientifically dubious to set scope 3 targets nytimes.com/2024/11/12/bus…

I'll continue posting here but for those who are moving, I'm also active on there! At least for now, engagement over there is much better and higher quality than for my posts here.

This is being framed as a *bad* thing but this is very good! One thing Texas cities have done *much* better than any blue city/state is to rapidly build housing to accommodate population growth and keep prices relatively affordable. We must continue to build more housing.

It's the engagement of experts here that contributes substantially to its staying power; the more experts who leave, the more journalists & others will follow. Regardless, expecting experts to use their finite time & energy to generate content for the platform for free (or even

I don't want to jinx it but the other place really feels like the older days of Twitter, when you could have fun conversations with other experts! Arguments about information silos are dumb - social media isn't representative of Americans & that's not how/why I want to use it.

The United States is about to walk off the field, ceding a major economic lever for the 21st century to China. Thank you for your attention to this matter.