iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

Just to clarify, is your argument that with a Senate D majority, it's possible/likely that Senate Rs will oppose anything and everything? Can't argue with that. Still, asymmetry in hardball tactics has real costs, including to communities and our broader coalition.

130

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

it's super friendly and reminds me of the old days of course everything sucks and is terrible but at least we can be good to each other

171

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

I just want to add that this is a since question and that I’m grateful for the thoughtful replies already, keep it up, we have to be nice to each other and best the fascists plus do all the other big things faster too.

1160

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

Got it. So it a better bill is implausible under threat of veto through 2028, then would it be fair to say that the question is whether to pass something soon (with more concessions) versus hope for a D president in 2029 (with potentially fewer concessions but definitely more contingencies)?

260

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

Dave I get the impression we may not be living in the best of all possible worlds

1150

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to tease out the political argument for “why now?”

110

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

Just to clarify, are you suggesting that the prospect of electoral change isn’t big enough to make a better deal possible? As in, one needs a certain number of R votes and whether that’s a lot or a few the list of demands doesn’t change much?

100

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

Yeah it’s not hard to be skeptical. That’s why I’m asking a sincere question about the political case for this timing.

320

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

Thanks I’ll try to review those materials. So are you suggesting that, if the new bill doesn’t move fast, the political case for it more or less presumes that whatever happens in the election affects any next steps? Or that there might be more pressure to pass it after election results are known?

130

Reposted by Danny Cullenward

Right To Zero @righttozero.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

BREAKING: @governor.ca.gov just signed the Home Energy Choice Act, a bill that will give Californians the freedom and funds to install electric appliances with money that would otherwise have been used to replace old gas lines earthjustice.org/press/2026/c...

earthjustice.org

California Passes the Home Energy Choice Act

AB 2313 gives Californians the option to install non-polluting appliances with the help of funds that would otherwise have been used to replace the old gas line to their home

02015

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

Can you say a bit more about why you think those odds are best now, and why a later bill won’t be better (or, if it is better, won’t be as likely to pass)? I’m not contesting the premise or the value of policy pragmatism. Just focused on the political argument here.

230

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

I’m still not getting it. It seems to me Ds almost certainly have more leverage in 2027. Maybe it’s not much and maybe it’s irrelevant in terms of shifting policy under this president, but surely it’s better, in terms of basic power and potential policy, than today?

250

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

I guess I’m not following. Are you saying that Ds think they have more leverage now, based on expectations for the new Congress, or that Rs are more willing to make concessions now on that same basis? As in, Rs won’t get what they want next year, so they deal now?

150

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

Granted. And I think it’s safe to say the House is expected to change a lot more than the Senate. What’s the implication there, in your view?

120

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

I take it you might be opposed to the deal; what I’m trying to understand is the reason this specific timing is supposed to be good for those of us who are interested in clean energy and climate. Have you heard anyone make that case?

240

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 01/10/2026

Can anyone explain to me why a national permitting deal is best negotiated now, mere weeks from an election that is likely to reshape federal power? Let’s stipulate that a deal of some kind is necessary and good; my question is what about the situation makes now more desirable than, say, Q1 2027?

208816

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 29/09/2026

But make no mistake, these debates matter because private standards can and will be used to lobby governments to take similar approaches. That is exactly why it is such a strategic mistake for NGOs like WRI to roll over to placate donors and standards-users.

160

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 29/09/2026

I don't think self-regulation can be managed without the credible threat of government policy. As @katearonoff.bsky.social writes, it's too easy for companies to walk away from purely voluntary regulation. newrepublic.com/article/2157...

Screenshot of text: "Generally only states can force that kind of change, and the credible threat of regulation is essential for voluntary initiatives like the GHG Protocol. At a time when it’s easier than ever for companies to abandon their climate commitments—and to stop funding green nonprofits—GHG Protocol secretariat staff may be understandably anxious to keep industry on side. Faced with the prospect of these hotly contested accounting methods being drafted into law, well-meaning environmentalists may have to decide between keeping corporate stakeholders engaged and happy, and maintaining scientific integrity."

171

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 29/09/2026

Transparency isn't sufficient, but it's a necessary first step. The other elephant in the room is self-regulation. Having companies participate is one thing; letting them dominate or manipulate decision-making processes is another.

130

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 29/09/2026

If WRI wants to demonstrate that it prioritizes scientific integrity above industry self-dealing, they should revisit the partnership with ISO and categorically reject any standards drafted by anonymous committees.

130

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 29/09/2026

There is a lot more to be said about the influence of the ISO partnership on the GHG Protocol. But I am not aware of any public documentation that explains the formal and informal mechanisms by which the ISO has decision-making authority in the GHGP process, so I can't add more.

230

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 29/09/2026

That said, the continued silence of senior WRI leadership, who are fully aware of what happened, is telling. I will repeat: they either don't care or they no longer have sufficient control over the process to do anything about it.

150

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 29/09/2026

I should add that while I found the behavior of certain WRI employees shocking, there are many great programs and people at WRI — including individuals who work on the GHG Protocol.

140

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 29/09/2026

As Jess says, the authority of standards-producers is a function of their acceptance by users. Having an almost monastic, oral culture and a partnership with ISO (which writes standards via anonymous committees) helps users maintain control. By design, opacity reduces accountability to outsiders.

151

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 29/09/2026

You might wonder how that kind of culture evolved in such a policy-relevant environment. Here again I think Jess' work helps explain how private authority develops and how its isolation from external technical feedback can lead to entrenchment.

150

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 29/09/2026

To some, unwritten theoretical principles were the most important issues to debate. Even if those principles produced the "wrong" answer, some said, they got there the "right" way. That's a silly claim, but it's easy to make if you don't have to write it down and put your name to it.

140

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 29/09/2026

To make matters worse, the debate over forest carbon accounting played out in an oral institutional culture that de-emphasizes written records. Until my colleague and I complained, there weren't even any board meeting minutes. (Board minutes were retroactively developed.)

140

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 29/09/2026

I think this has a lot of explanatory power, at least with respect to WRI. (WBCSD isn't hiding its industry-aligned advocacy.) But there's more to it. Some people genuinely believe that theoretical accounting principles require outcomes that make no physical, scientific, or policy sense.

166

Reposted by Danny Cullenward

Jessica Green @greenprofgreen.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Big ups to @katearonoff.bsky.social for covering this seemingly boring but actually really important story about the GHG Protocol. Standards are technical & opaque AND they’re where the politics happen. This is a classic case of “managing tons.” 🧵

newrepublic.com

Did the Forestry Industry Just Get to Write Its Own Emissions Rules?

Accusations of industry capture, allegedly secret working groups, and the resignations of two researchers—a scandal is rocking the world of carbon emissions accounting.

15126

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 29/09/2026

The tech community does this with non-profit corporate structures, too. One can effect the same approach to voting powers for board seats with or without corporate shares, e.g. so a founder unilaterally controls a majority of a non-profit’s board seats + can hire or fire without cause.

060

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 25/09/2026

This definitely won't turn into a 23 and me story, no sir, absolutely no way this podunk ed tech AI play will end up selling mass recordings of students to the highest bidder once they inevitably fold. Oops! Did we forget to consider data privacy when we made your kids interact with this software?

071

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 25/09/2026

Super great having your kids' voice recordings sent to a private company to farm data, thanks to the gross negligence of the leadership of the San Francisco Unified School District. Can't say enough good things about the teachers and schools. I sure wish the district wasn't incompetent.

sfstandard.com

Why kids, parents, and teachers are so frustrated by SFUSD’s AI reading tutor

Kids say Amira can’t understand them. Teachers say the district is pushing it anyway. And the company has yet to prove it works.

1164

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 24/09/2026

A big thanks to the incredible team at the Kleinman Center for supporting this event and for the scientists who volunteered their time in provide evidence-based recommendations: Miguel Brandão Charlie Canham Jiaxin Chen Kate Dooley Heather Keith @timsearchinger.bsky.social

030

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 24/09/2026

Want to learn more about the industry proposal to give companies carbon credit for cutting down trees, or why it's being taken seriously as a standard for corporate reporting — despite its scientific flaws? Hear from the scientists themselves at a recent @kleinmanenergy.bsky.social webinar ⤵️

youtube.com

Forest Carbon Accounting in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol

YouTube video by Kleinman Energy

1115

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 24/09/2026

Couldn’t be happier with my Hyundai Kona. My in-laws have an Ioniq 5 and it’s great, too.

260

Reposted by Danny Cullenward

Energy vs Climate Podcast @energyvsclimate.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

“We're very used to stories wrapping up. We're in the mid-transition, we'll get to the end of it eventually. You might not.” Emily Grubert on the real risk of a slow energy transition: it might just never finish. #EnergyTransition #ClimatePolicy #Decarbonization

032

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 19/09/2026

I am so, so sorry to hear it. Beyond his path-breaking work, Joe was such a kind and decent person. What a loss.

171

Reposted by Danny Cullenward

Michael E. Mann @michaelemann.bsky.social · 18/09/2026

It is with tremendous sadness and sense of loss that we regretfully share the news that @penncssm.bsky.social senior research fellow, and my close personal friend Joseph Romm has passed away unexpectedly. He will be sorely missed here. web.sas.upenn.edu/pcssm/news/r...

web.sas.upenn.edu

Remembering Dr. Joe Romm

It is with great sadness that the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media shares news of the passing of PCSSM Senior Research Fellow Dr. Joe Romm. Please find below an obituary prepared ...

71622105

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 18/09/2026

FWIW that’s not my reaction. I’m angry. And I’m organizing. Don’t let the craven nonsense get you down — these fights matter and they aren’t going to get away with this one.

000

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 18/09/2026

You are too kind. Plus I see your hustle in fights that matter, don’t sell yourself short :)

010

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 17/09/2026

Forest Carbon Accounting in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol 22 September 2026 6 am West Coast 🇺🇸 9 am East Coast 🇺🇸 2 pm 🇬🇧 3 pm 🇪🇺 9 pm 🇨🇳 11 pm 🇦🇺 Featuring the scientists who volunteered their time to promote evidence-based outcomes (see list at link below)

kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu

Forest Carbon Accounting in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol

Energy policy research from the University of Pennsylvania

0206

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 17/09/2026

If you don't like companies cooking up their own accounting rules and steamrolling all the scientists to get their way — or if you just want to understand how anyone could possibly claim that cutting down trees removes pollution from the atmosphere — please join our free webinar next week.

1257

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 17/09/2026

In June, after more than a year working inside the process to address overt corruption, I resigned my position on the Protocol's Independent Standards Board in protest.

1297

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 17/09/2026

The inimitable @mikegrunwald.bsky.social has an exceptionally well written oped on the disastrous proposal from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol to give companies carbon credit for cutting down trees.

nytimes.com

Opinion | The Latest Corporate Climate Ruse (Gift Article)

Making deforestation look climate-friendly will encourage a lot more deforestation.

311470

Danny Cullenward @ghgpolicy.org · 12/09/2026

It is such a good print! It hangs on my wall!

081