Deciphering the latest IPCC report

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that the world must act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or risk catastrophic global warming. But the summary approved by member states reflects political disputes over key passages and downplays viable and promising solutions.

NEW YORK – In March, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its so-called “synthesis report”, the final section of its sixth assessment report (AR6). Based on thousands of peer-reviewed papers from hundreds of scientists around the world, the report provides a comprehensive review of the impact of climate change and what the world must do to limit global warming to 1.5° Celsius.

The good news is that, according to the IPCC, “feasible, effective, and low-cost options for mitigation and adaptation are already available.” But ensuring a “livable and sustainable future for all” also requires far-reaching transformation and the political will to take bold action.

The IPCC reports are invaluable. By bringing science into climate negotiations that would otherwise be dominated by political and economic considerations, the reports inform and promote accountability. Often totaling over 1,000 pages, each report includes a shorter summary for policymakers that must be officially endorsed by member states. This process allows government representatives and observers to comment on incoming drafts while allowing scientists to reject suggestions that challenge the integrity of their research. However, during the approval process, sentences may be strengthened, softened, or even removed from the final draft.

The latest report warns that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and intense than previously anticipated, while global action has been much slower than expected. Every fraction of a degree matters, and at the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the world is hurtling toward a 3.5°C rise by 2100, with devastating consequences for humanity and the planet.

Unless urgent action is taken to halve current greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, it is “more likely than not” that global warming will reach 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels in the next decade, warns the report. But if policymakers act now, they could still prevent ice sheets from melting, permafrost from thawing, and ecosystems from collapsing, thus saving countless lives.

To change course, we must address the root cause of climate change: “unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles, and consumption and production patterns across regions, across countries, and across regions.” within them, and between individuals. Governments could choose many feasible and cost-effective steps to reduce emissions. The most promising are those that integrate rights-based approaches that incorporate meaningful public participation in decision-making, gender equity, biodiversity protection, human rights, and the rights of indigenous peoples. The IPCC report finds that policies that promote equity, equity, and climate justice “lead to more sustainable outcomes” and “reduce trade-offs, support transformative change, and promote climate-resilient development.” In short, fairer climate policies receive more support and are therefore more effective.

The most effective way to reduce emissions is to phase out fossil fuels and quickly switch to renewable energy, particularly solar and wind power. But the report also identifies important demand-side and economic measures, such as “sufficiency” approaches, circular flows of materials, energy efficiency, sustainable consumption and production, widespread public transport, and agricultural practices based on “sustainable resource management approaches.” land”.

Behavior changes, such as adopting a “healthy and sustainable diet,” reducing the use of household appliances and forgoing private cars in favor of walking and cycling, could also help reduce emissions. As the IPCC report points out, the top 10% of households with the highest per capita emissions account for 34-45% of global consumption-based household emissions, while the bottom 50% contribute only 13-15 percent.

Interestingly, despite the documented environmental benefits of reducing meat consumption in favor of healthier diets, both the summary and the full report make no mention of meat or dairy and relegate the phrase “plant-based” to a footnote. .

In addition, the report dropped a hopeful, high-confidence sentence related to urgent, fast, achievable, and equitable near-term policies to address climate change and improve human well-being that are already available at scale. This sparked an outcry among many observers and a variety of states that sought to withhold the scientific finding. However, after hours of discussion, the sentence was left out; the words “urgent”, “fast” and “available at scale” seemed too sensitive for universal approval, highlighting the tension between science and political will.

This tension was evident in the three sessions that preceded the adoption of the sixth assessment report. Developing countries expressed anger at developed countries for not doing enough, despite their historical responsibility for climate change, and despite their promises to provide financing and technology transfers to facilitate adaptation efforts. Meanwhile, language referring to fossil fuel reduction, renewable energy profitability and equitable ownership of renewable energy has weakened, reflecting advocacy by those seeking to maintain fossil fuel extraction.

As a result of insufficient global political will, the summary emphasizes net-zero terminology over the need for real and rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This could lead less informed legislators to conclude that we can magically plant trees and continue as we have done so far.

Furthermore, geoengineering solutions such as carbon dioxide removal and carbon capture and storage (CCS) have been given more space than renewables, despite research showing that deploying these technologies entails huge environmental risks. Also, compared to rapid renewable energy transitions, CCS remains reliant on fossil fuels, is more expensive, is not available at scale, and is less effective in reducing emissions. While the summary mentions some of these risks, it buries them in a footnote.

The IPCC reports remain an indispensable resource for informing people about the impact of climate change. But readers looking for a clear assessment of current efforts to reduce global emissions and ensure we limit global warming to 1.5°C should skip the summary and read the full report.

The author

He is representative for the Human Impacts of Climate Change at the United Nations Quaker Office in Geneva.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 1995 – 2023

www.projectsyndicate.org