Adam Bornstein 🌋😺📦⛓

@harpoonbrewery had a great lunch with family at Windsor location. Thanks to Nick the manager and our waitress Brie for a wonderful experience. House Pale Ale is fantastic.

I spent the past three days in Beijing doing back-to-back meetings and presentations with people working on energy and climate. The U.S. election outcome came up often, obviously, with questions about the implications for different countries, sectors, policies and negotiations. But one comment from a Chinese researcher provided striking, unexpected clarity. What she said is that if as an individual you are committed to promoting a green future, an election changes nothing about what you need to do. You need to keep working and doing the right things. Individuals with this conviction work in governments, corporations, academia and civil society around the world. My short visit was an inspiring opportunity to connect and reconnect with some of those people in China, once again seeing the tireless work being done to adopt more ambitious policies, implement clean energy on the ground, improve emissions reporting and carry out many of the countless other steps needed to put the country on track to carbon neutrality. Climate action in the U.S. will also continue on the state level, in enterprises and in many communities. Their job will be made much harder by an obstructionist president and Congress but again it changes nothing about what needs to be done. The need for the clean energy transition or acting on the grave threat of climate change were not on the ballot even in the U.S. - those policies remain popular but became the victims of unrelated politics. I'm not downplaying the fact that Trump's likely policies will slow down the energy transition in the U.S., compared with what Harris would have done. But the largest potential impact of Trump's presidency would be a knock-on effect on the efforts in the rest of the world, and that impact will only happen if others let them be swayed by obstructionist rhetoric and policies from the U.S.

Great charts on China's steel sector trends from @ShenXinyi313 @CREACleanAir. Steel output is currently falling quite sharply, leading to reductions in coal use and emissions. However, the brunt of the drop is borne by the cleaner electric arc steelmakers rather than the dirtier coal-based steel plants. This highlights the main obstacle to the decarbonization of the sector: coal-based blast furnaces are too cheap to run compared with electric arc furnaces which use recycled scrap and have much lower emissions. This also undermines the economic incentive to increase scrap recycling rates. It's a major problem that not only holds back decarbonization but also increases China's reliance on imported iron ore and coking coal. The inclusion of steel in China's emissions trading could in theory help, but it's unfortunately very likely that the sector will be treated in the same way as thermal power, setting separate emissions benchmarks for coal-based (BF-BOF) steelmaking and electric steelmaking. This means that the system will create no incentive to switch to electricity. The additional challenge is that steel demand has shifted from relatively low quality construction steel to manufacturing, so there's a need for China's electric steelmakers to improve quality and innovate. Which obviously doesn't happen when the profitability and incentives aren't there. The Xi administration isn't big on economic incentives and the problem doesn't really get even discussed much in those terms far as I can tell, so administrative intervention seems the more likely tool for the government to use. After new steelmaking projects were banned last month, capping coal-based steel production instead of (or in addition to) total steel production and starting to decommission older coal-based capacity would be the natural steps to take.

More Than 40% of World’s Electricity Came From Zero-Carbon Sources in 2023 - WSJ wsj.com/articles/more-…

@MLiebreich interested in your thoughts about this report: climateworks.org/report/unlocki…

@janrosenow This is the best graphic to help explain the impact of electrifying everything…

NEW RESEARCH: Electrification of industrial processes can deliver significant energy efficiency gains. This excellent new policy brief demonstrates this using Germany as a case study. The policy brief also provides a useful analysis of technical applications, barriers to uptake and policy solutions. The graphic in this post shows the savings potential for selected applications in TWh (bars) and the efficiency gains specific technologies can deliver (blue dots represent applications listed earlier in the policy brief in Figure 4). Authors are from @FraunhoferISI & @RWTH Full policy brief available here: lnkd.in/enB4H3j8

Did you know this: when you use renewable electricity to make hydrogen, you can't use it for things that abate 2x to 9x more emissions, namely getting coal off the grid, powering heat pumps and charging EVs. Call me old-fashioned, but I think this should have policy implications.

Back of the napkin calc is $2,740/KW for China to develop nuclear compared to upwards of $8,000/KW in the US. Shortly, China will surpass France as the country with the largest nuclear reactor fleet. reuters.com/business/energ…

Startups are finding novel ways to recycle carbon @TheEconomist econ.st/3X7m5jS

@APompliano What if you subtract for pre-COVID inflation of 2% but add back in 5% wage inflation (2020-2023)? Inflation is still high but it will provide a more realistic, less sensational figure.

Food prices have increased nearly 26% since November 2020. It is difficult to describe the economic pain many Americans are living through.

China’s State Council released a plan on speeding up the creation of a “dual control system” to control total CO2 emissions and emissions intensity. It clarifies the timeline for China to start regulating carbon emissions domestically and to adopt absolute emissions targets, but despite the name, doesn’t “speed up” the process in any way compared with earlier plans. China has pledged carbon intensity targets, i.e. targets to reduce CO2 emissions per unit of GDP, since the 12th five-year plan, for 2011-15. Yet, domestically, the “hard” target that local governments and the central government had to meet was the target for energy intensity, not carbon intensity, which focused efforts on energy efficiency and reducing structural reliance on the most energy-intensive industries, but didn’t create an incentive for boosting clean energy, as all forms of energy are treated the same under the target. Until the zero-Covid period, the country was comfortably meeting the carbon intensity targets, which allowed emissions to keep growing rapidly as long as GDP growth was even faster. Now the new plan reiterates what the government already said in the current five-year plans, for 2021-25 - China will build the system for regulating carbon intensity and total CO2 emissions during this period. The plan is that the 15th five-year plan will make carbon intensity targets binding in the 2026-30 period. There will be a non-binding, “supplementary” target for absolute emissions level in 2030, and then in the following five-year periods, when CO2 emissions have peaked, there will be a binding absolute emissions target. If anything, this is a slower approach than actually building the full “dual control” system targeting both CO2 intensity and total CO2 emissions by 2025. So rather than “speeding up” it’s a confirmation that China’s planners are still anticipating a late peak in emissions just before 2030. However, if China’s “binding” domestic carbon intensity target for 2030 is in line with the country’s internationally pledged commitment for 2030, the target will need to be quite demanding. This is because China fell so badly behind the intensity targets during zero-Covid while economic growth was driven by energy-intensive manufacturing. At expected rates of GDP growth, there is no space for CO2 emissions to increase from 2023 to 2030. The plan does leave this a bit ambiguous, listing China’s international commitments as one factor to be “considered” when setting the national carbon intensity target. The carbon intensity target for 2024, a 3.9% reduction, fell far short of what would be needed to get on track to the 2025 and 2030 commitments. At any rate, the plan describes an elaborate system of CO2 emissions accounting on the level of local governments, industrial sectors and firms. The shift to carbon emissions control has already become one driver of the enthusiasm of local governments and state-owned firms towards clean energy projects, as the more clean energy you have, the more space for industrial growth you will have locally. The effect of such incentives is profound in China’s system.

How to Manage Your Emotions For Better Leadership thoughtfulleader.com/manage-emotion…

@PJLibrary my daughter Nunu's #tzedakah story is a hybrid approach. She started a small foundation called Bornhopeful.org. She makes and sells artwork and games and then uses proceeds to help other kids. Our family matches the amount she earns. bornhopeful.org

@contrar_ian @Oabousamra @PrepareCenter @danskrodekors @KenyaRedCross @contrar_ian thanks for shoutout. Community Inclusion Currencies (CICs) are now in South Africa and Cameroon. The partnerships have grown to include new programs with @ICRC @giz_gmbh @WFP @HIPNorway @CroixRougeCam and many others. @grassEcon @danskrodekors @DanishMFA @ifrc

@Oabousamra & @AdamBornstein, we had a chance to highlight @PrepareCenter, @danskrodekors, and @KenyaRedCross work with the Atlas app and local inclusion currencies in this blog post on engaging local businesses in Anticipatory Action. Keep up the good work!

@kashthefuturist Cool but I thought Pluto wasn’t a planet

This is how planets of the solar system rotate

@danskrodekors @HIPNorway

Regular petrol at $3.339/gallon...🥳🥳

A megawatt-hour of electricity in France and Germany is the equivalent of over $1,600 a barrel of oil 🤯. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…