Speaker 1: Welcome to zero I am Akshadrati This week the future
Speaker 1: of climate science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was
Speaker 1: founded in nineteen eighty eight as a United Nations body
Speaker 1: that provides impartial advice to governments about the state of
Speaker 1: climate science. It is best known for producing its assessment
Speaker 1: reports roughly every five years, and they formed the basis
Speaker 1: of policies around the world. The last set of reports,
Speaker 1: known as AR six, were released between twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: and twenty three and made headlines around the world for
Speaker 1: saying that it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed
Speaker 1: the atmosphere, ocean, and land. It may sound obvious now,
Speaker 1: but the level of evidence needed for all scientists to
Speaker 1: agree on unequivocal is nothing short of daggering, and that's
Speaker 1: why it made front page headlines around the world. The
Speaker 1: IPCC's and next set of reports, called AR seven, are
Speaker 1: due to be released between twenty twenty eight and twenty nine,
Speaker 1: and while they no longer need to prove that humans
Speaker 1: are causing climate change, these reports will form the basis
Speaker 1: of the next set of government policies and targets. It's
Speaker 1: vital work and when the reports come out, they will
Speaker 1: make front page headlines again, but the organization is now
Speaker 1: operating in a much more challenging environment, with climate misinformation
Speaker 1: on the rise and the US withdrawing from the IPCC
Speaker 1: process that reduces the contributions to the IPCC's budget and
Speaker 1: cuts the funding for US climate scientists to participate. This
Speaker 1: week on Zero I am joined by Professor Jimski, the
Speaker 1: Chair of the IPCC, to ask what the future of
Speaker 1: the IPCC looks like, whether the organization can survive the
Speaker 1: US's withdrawal, and what kind of questions the next set
Speaker 1: of reports are going to answer. Welcome to the show,
Speaker 1: professors Ki.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you for having me. Very pleased to be here.
Speaker 1: So the IPCC is nearly forty years old and its
Speaker 1: comprehensive reports have formed the basis of how the world
Speaker 1: understands and attempts to tackle climate change, and the work
Speaker 1: is being recognized widely. It even won Nobel Prize in
Speaker 1: two thousand and seven. You became the chair in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, and you will preside over what is going
Speaker 1: to be the seventh Assessment report that'll come over the
Speaker 1: next few years. We'll come to the report and we'll
Speaker 1: try and understand a little bit about the science and
Speaker 1: the political moment that we find ourselves in. But if
Speaker 1: you take the big picture of you, how do you
Speaker 1: think the IPCC has evolved to remain effective in these
Speaker 1: four decades.
Speaker 2: Well, I think when IPCC started out, and just to
Speaker 2: say I was not there at the beginning, I'm old,
Speaker 2: but I'm not that old. So I think it was
Speaker 2: a world in which things were actually much more informal.
Speaker 2: You know, a group of scientists got together, obviously under
Speaker 2: intergovernmental auspices, but they were a small number of scientists.
Speaker 2: And as we've gone through the last thirty forty years
Speaker 2: we face challenges. I think we formalized the process as
Speaker 2: much more. Our principles and procedures are much more elaborate.
Speaker 2: We have ways of dealing with any alleged errors that
Speaker 2: occur in reports. We have much more formal ways of
Speaker 2: appointing off authors and criteria for selecting authors. So it's
Speaker 2: a much more disciplined world, if I can put it
Speaker 2: that way, from the world we started in.
Speaker 1: There is right now a group of people who understand
Speaker 1: and are convinced about climate action and who are proceeding
Speaker 1: with taking on many of the steps that the IPCC
Speaker 1: has laid out there is also an has always been
Speaker 1: another group of people who are completely opposed to climate action,
Speaker 1: who are ideologically opposed to it. How do you think
Speaker 1: IPCC's work speaks to that second group of people.
Speaker 2: Well, just to say, it's not IPCC's job to engage
Speaker 2: in advocacy. It's our job to stick to the science,
Speaker 2: and we're not going to enthusiastically engage in big debates
Speaker 2: among advocates either for or against climate change action. So
Speaker 2: what we need to do is to keep putting over
Speaker 2: the messages that we have put over in the reports
Speaker 2: that are solidly rooted in climate science. In the last report,
Speaker 2: we said, and this was one of the strongest IPCC
Speaker 2: statements ever, humans are responsible for the climate change that
Speaker 2: we are seeing, and that evidence is unequivocal. So unequivocal
Speaker 2: is a strong word, but it really reflected the underlying science.
Speaker 1: I've spent a lot of time in the lab. I
Speaker 1: got a PhD in chemistry, and so I have much
Speaker 1: appreciation for the process of science. Why scientists have to
Speaker 1: be precise and measured when they communicate the results that
Speaker 1: they come up with. But in this environment where policy
Speaker 1: is shaped not just by the science, but by people
Speaker 1: who are allowed. You know, you have politicians, you have
Speaker 1: TikTok influencers and YouTube stars, and even respected newspapers who
Speaker 1: publish columns that are completely anti science, that take the
Speaker 1: wrong science on. Given the information ecosystem, how do you
Speaker 1: think IPCC's communication strategy has to evolve in this moment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm really glad you used the word ecosystem in
Speaker 2: your question because I was about to use it in
Speaker 2: my answer. There is a very complex ecosystem of bodies
Speaker 2: addressing climate change, all the way from pure science to
Speaker 2: your advocacy. An IPCC's place in the ecosystem, it's unique
Speaker 2: one is that it's findings represent a consensus between governments
Speaker 2: and scientists. The way that our reports are produced at
Speaker 2: the final stages, and that gives us just a very
Speaker 2: very unique role and a sense of authority. So we
Speaker 2: absolutely it says in our rules our first audiences are
Speaker 2: the UN system and governments, so it's public policy making
Speaker 2: that is our target audience. But we also have secondary
Speaker 2: audiences and we try to get the message out to
Speaker 2: a much wider range of people, whether it's people in business,
Speaker 2: civil society, and NGOs, young people. You know through trying
Speaker 2: to produce, say, fact sheets that summarize the findings of
Speaker 2: IPCC reports. So our communication is absolutely there our first
Speaker 2: one governments in the UN, but we don't ignore other
Speaker 2: audiences as well.
Speaker 1: But when the IBCC comes under attack for political biases,
Speaker 1: for cherry picking all these phrases that Clement denihlysts come
Speaker 1: up with, do you need to respond and be offensive
Speaker 1: about your strategy to respond to the fact that these
Speaker 1: are not based in valid.
Speaker 2: I don't think our communication strategy implies that. You know,
Speaker 2: we we dive into the blogosphere and respond to every
Speaker 2: single comment because there are so many of them out there.
Speaker 2: We do take a measured approach to it. We just
Speaker 2: continue to plug away at the messages, the findings of
Speaker 2: the scientific reports, because the moment we start engaging in
Speaker 2: these in these debates, that's the moment we take away
Speaker 2: from our authority there. So we are very conscious of
Speaker 2: our unique position.
Speaker 1: Do you think that approach is working?
Speaker 2: It's working as well. I mean, if we were to
Speaker 2: engage in the blogosphere, it's not what it's what you
Speaker 2: could lose that we're worried about, not what you could
Speaker 2: actually win. There are huge risks there because it could effectly,
Speaker 2: you know, affect people's perception of us if we are
Speaker 2: perceived to be on one side or another of a debate.
Speaker 2: We are supposed to review all the literature taken to
Speaker 2: count all the possible views, and if we become one
Speaker 2: of the actors in a debate, I think it causes
Speaker 2: a lot of problems reputationally.
Speaker 1: Now let's talk about AR seven and the report that's
Speaker 1: coming and the science that's going to be fed into it.
Speaker 1: IPCC reports that thousands of pages long. They are long
Speaker 1: for a good reason. There's a lot of science that
Speaker 1: goes in there. But you know, you compare it to
Speaker 1: other reports that have come out just for fun. I
Speaker 1: picked one. The US era nuclear Deal was one fifty
Speaker 1: nine pages long. So, after six such assessments that you've done,
Speaker 1: what are big questions that AR seven still needs to
Speaker 1: find ways to answer?
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, there are several things that will be I mean,
Speaker 2: science enough for sleeps that are always new issues opening up.
Speaker 2: One of the things, it's now almost certain that we
Speaker 2: will exceed global warming of one point five degrees within
Speaker 2: the next few years, so but politicians still maintain this
Speaker 2: aspiration to limit warming to one point five degrees in
Speaker 2: the long which means we will, in the parlance, have
Speaker 2: overshoot of the temperature limit and politicians would aspire to
Speaker 2: bring us back again. And understanding this overshoot is one
Speaker 2: of the big challenges for the next cycle that scientists
Speaker 2: are working on right at the moment there and it
Speaker 2: cuts across all of IPCC because our physical scientists in
Speaker 2: Working Group one need to respond to issue how would
Speaker 2: the Earth system respond to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,
Speaker 2: and it's not fully understood. Our people on impacts and
Speaker 2: adaptation in Working Group two need to understand some of
Speaker 2: the irreversibility and irreversible impacts that might occur as we
Speaker 2: go past one point five degrees that we can't go
Speaker 2: back on even if we bring their temperatures back down.
Speaker 2: And for our colleagues in Working Group three on the
Speaker 2: mitigation side, which means removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
Speaker 2: as well as reducing emissions, the big challenge is there
Speaker 2: there are many new, more technological approaches to removing carbon
Speaker 2: dioxide from the atmosphere that have yet to be addressed
Speaker 2: fully in IPCC reports or the underlying science. So there's
Speaker 2: just a huge agenda round that particular issue.
Speaker 1: And it's very important that we understand the science before
Speaker 1: we start spending billions and maybe trillions of dollars that's
Speaker 1: what may be needed for the type of carbon removal
Speaker 1: we are talking about. When you say that there are
Speaker 1: still questions and uncertainties, where are those uncertainties the biggest.
Speaker 2: Well, the uncertainties go right through it, because we obviously
Speaker 2: haven't done physically all the things that we might need
Speaker 2: to do in terms of carbon dioxide removal. We don't
Speaker 2: understand what the costs are. There are lots of claims
Speaker 2: out there, but we haven't done it at a commercial
Speaker 2: scale as yet. And then there are other issues about
Speaker 2: the feasibility. They're very reliant on resources like energy, water,
Speaker 2: land availability, and there may be political acceptance issues as well.
Speaker 2: So all of these issues around feasibility are going to
Speaker 2: need to be addressed as well.
Speaker 1: There are other things that have come up in the
Speaker 1: last few years, so there has been some talk about
Speaker 1: perhaps we are on a faster warming track than was
Speaker 1: previously taught, and especially the years of twenty three and
Speaker 1: twenty four were those piers when people really were alarmed
Speaker 1: by the types of impact that we were seeing at
Speaker 1: that temperature. Is the IPCC looking to answer that question
Speaker 1: in the next report.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean the last report didn't get quite there
Speaker 2: in terms of answering that because we were seeing some
Speaker 2: very unusual kind of things happening just as the last
Speaker 2: reports came out. I think the conclusion that we've got
Speaker 2: so far in terms of global indicators, we are right
Speaker 2: at the edge of the envelope of projections that were
Speaker 2: previously produced, but we have not yet gone outside the
Speaker 2: envelope as yet. Now that's not the case for more
Speaker 2: local indicators, for example in specific regions of the world,
Speaker 2: or for example for the oceans where we've seen heat
Speaker 2: waves in the oceans in particular places that are quite
Speaker 2: you know, are really not well understood. They're outside what
Speaker 2: was projected. So yeah, we've got to dive into that
Speaker 2: over the next three years or so.
Speaker 1: You got started in the climate side of the equation
Speaker 1: or the environmental side of the equation through sulfur pollution
Speaker 1: in your early research in the US. Most recently, sulfur
Speaker 1: pollution came up as an issue where because the shipping
Speaker 1: fuels are getting cleaner, there were places around the Mediterranean
Speaker 1: in the North Atlantic that saw higher warming. Is that
Speaker 1: the type of question that needs to also be answered.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So the question sulfur dioxide is important because you know,
Speaker 2: in the atmosphere, it tends to cool the atmosphere rather
Speaker 2: than warm it top. So if you take the sulfur
Speaker 2: dioxide away, temperatures will be higher than the otherwise would
Speaker 2: have been. So, yeah, that's the one of the important
Speaker 2: things that we do need to consider. Now we have
Speaker 2: a part of IPCC that not many people have necessarily noticed,
Speaker 2: called the Task Force or National Greenhouse Gas Inventories or
Speaker 2: the TFI, and it has been charged with developing methods
Speaker 2: by which governments can report their emissions of pollutants like
Speaker 2: sulfur dioxide to the unf Triple C in the future
Speaker 2: so that these things can be taken into account. It's
Speaker 2: one of two methodology reports that the TFI will produce
Speaker 2: during the cycle, the other one being on carbon dioxide
Speaker 2: removal technologies, on carbon culture utilization and storage.
Speaker 1: There's also been the use of artificial intelligence, which I
Speaker 1: would say is new. You know, there was machine learning
Speaker 1: in the previous cycle, I guess, but today it is
Speaker 1: much faster. It's being used more widely. There could be
Speaker 1: applications for how IPCC scientists collate the information to put
Speaker 1: into reports. How is AI being seen, both from the
Speaker 1: perspective of the reports itself and making of the report.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's important for everybody, and it's important for us
Speaker 2: as well, and that's actually why we ran a three
Speaker 2: day workshop last week at the University of Reading on
Speaker 2: specifically the topic of methods assessment on artificial intelligence and
Speaker 2: large language models played a big role in that. Now
Speaker 2: that meeting finished just three days ago, so I'm not
Speaker 2: quite in a position to report on the findings, but
Speaker 2: it's very clear that AI has implications all the way
Speaker 2: through from discovery of literature. It may actually improve the process.
Speaker 2: It can help us perhaps with addressing the thousands upon
Speaker 2: thousands of review comments that we get on each of
Speaker 2: our individual drafts. But one thing to be very sure,
Speaker 2: and this is a very solid conclusion. When every IPCC
Speaker 2: report comes out, the authors are told you are going
Speaker 2: to be responsible for all of the content, and there's
Speaker 2: no way you can just turn it over to AI
Speaker 2: and use that to excuse so it needs to be
Speaker 2: checked and I think a very big conclusion this is
Speaker 2: about the interaction with human beings and technology technology is
Speaker 2: not going to solve the problems here. We need the
Speaker 2: people as part of the process. On one particular area
Speaker 2: where it's important that the humans there are assigning the
Speaker 2: confidence level in findings, and we really can't find a
Speaker 2: way in which AI can really substantially help us with that.
Speaker 2: A lot of judgment is still needed there.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what our editors see to us as well.
Speaker 1: Every word that's published by us is under our byline.
Speaker 1: If we use AI for research, etc. That's on us.
Speaker 1: If AI makes mistaken republish it, that's on me, not
Speaker 1: the AI. So I think that's important from a place
Speaker 1: of bringing trust, But it also points me to a
Speaker 1: place where you know IPCC reports, they are long, and
Speaker 1: they're big, and they come every five to seven years
Speaker 1: kind of the amount of time it takes. But every
Speaker 1: assessment report, one of the scientists told us, is now
Speaker 1: packed with double the amount of research compared to the
Speaker 1: previous one. So the rate at which climate science research
Speaker 1: is happening is also growing. Isn't there then a case
Speaker 1: to be made that despite how much work it takes,
Speaker 1: you actually need to be publishing this report these reports
Speaker 1: more frequently. Given our understanding is improving more quickly.
Speaker 2: Well, ideally, I think it would be wonderful if we
Speaker 2: could produce reports more quickly, But the authority of IPCC
Speaker 2: actually comes from the rigor of the review processes that
Speaker 2: we go through, and it is not really possible to
Speaker 2: imagine getting a report completed from the point the governments
Speaker 2: decide to produce one till the final approval of less
Speaker 2: than about three to four years for doing it, because
Speaker 2: we have to have a scoping meeting the governments and
Speaker 2: I need to sign off the scope, and only then
Speaker 2: can we even start selecting authors who need to be
Speaker 2: nominated by governments and observers. And we go through two
Speaker 2: external drafts, a so called first order draft for experts,
Speaker 2: a second order draft for experts and governments, and the
Speaker 2: summary for policymakers then goes out once again to governments,
Speaker 2: even before we go to that crucial approval session where
Speaker 2: we crawl through the summary word for word, line line
Speaker 2: for line, and by the time you add up all
Speaker 2: the gaps and the time and take account of the
Speaker 2: time that our authors need because they're all volunteers taking
Speaker 2: time out of their day jobs, that's the answer. So
Speaker 2: you couldn't do it more quickly unless you were able
Speaker 2: to you were willing to compromise on some of the
Speaker 2: rigor of the reports. So I think for me, we've
Speaker 2: given our unique status. I don't see the prospect of
Speaker 2: speeding it up hugely.
Speaker 1: But there's a risk of missing major moments because this
Speaker 1: new IBC support will come into twenty eight and onwards,
Speaker 1: it will take a while because it takes about fifteen
Speaker 1: to eighteen months to publish the entire thing. The next
Speaker 1: global stock take, which happens as part of the United
Speaker 1: Nations Cup process, is supposed to happen in twenty twenty eight,
Speaker 1: and it only happens every five years, and that stock
Speaker 1: take then feeds into the climate goals that government set
Speaker 1: in the future. So we currently got twenty thirty five
Speaker 1: goals last year that were said because of the previous
Speaker 1: stock tag that happened in twenty twenty three. So now
Speaker 1: that air sim is not going to come in that cycle,
Speaker 1: it's not going to feed into policymaker's decisions. Isn't that
Speaker 1: a lost opportunity for the IPCC to inform policymakers with
Speaker 1: the latest science.
Speaker 2: Right, You're touching on one of the most tricky issues
Speaker 2: that we have faced in the seventh cycle, which is
Speaker 2: the timing of the production of the reports, and some
Speaker 2: of our governments would attach a priority to completing the
Speaker 2: work in time for the conclusion of the second Global
Speaker 2: stock take. Others are emphasizing other issues, like, for example,
Speaker 2: the time it takes for authors from developing countries to
Speaker 2: publish literature that can be assessed by IPCC. So there
Speaker 2: are differences of view. So just where we're the reports
Speaker 2: will certainly under any scenario start to come out in
Speaker 2: the middle of twenty twenty eight, so at least some
Speaker 2: of the output will be there in time for the
Speaker 2: conclusion of the second Global stock Take. The other ones
Speaker 2: we don't know about because our governments have yet to decide.
Speaker 2: And I'm just the humble chair of IPCC. You know,
Speaker 2: I'm not directing the thing from the top. The government
Speaker 2: is an intergovernmental panel. It's the governments who need to decide,
Speaker 2: and they have yet to decide on the timeline. So
Speaker 2: we wait and see. But at least some of the
Speaker 2: output I think will be available. Worthwhile also saying that
Speaker 2: the second Global stock take under the Paris Agreement is
Speaker 2: not the only event that is taking place during this decade.
Speaker 2: Because there will be another periodic review under the Convention
Speaker 2: itself of the long term goal of the Convention in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty nine, and we would expect, regardless of the scenario,
Speaker 2: the output to be available for that particular point.
Speaker 1: After the break. How much does it matter that the
Speaker 1: US has been drawn from the IPCC. If you have
Speaker 1: thoughts on the episode, write to us at zero port
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot net. And if you've got a moment,
Speaker 1: please write us a review on Apple podcast, Spotify, and YouTube,
Speaker 1: where you can find our archive of over one hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy episodes. Let's come to the politics, because politics
Speaker 1: does affect you in indirect ways, if not direct ways.
Speaker 1: The US has been drawn from the IPCC. How does
Speaker 1: that affect US scientist's contribution to the IPCC.
Speaker 2: Well, even though the US has informed us that will
Speaker 2: not participate. Now, just to say, IPCC does not have
Speaker 2: a membership list. Its rules say that any government that
Speaker 2: as a member of the UN or the World Meteorological
Speaker 2: Organization can participate. So some countries may choose not to participate.
Speaker 2: And you know that's the way it is. In terms
Speaker 2: of people who are contributing to the cycle. We have
Speaker 2: around fifty US scientists who are involved in the seventh
Speaker 2: Assessment Report, and these were nominated by observer organizations and
Speaker 2: their travel and subsistence is being funded by philanthropic bodies.
Speaker 2: So that's where we are, and we still have US
Speaker 2: science represented in the in the reports.
Speaker 1: But that's a fraction of the number of US scientists
Speaker 1: that would have participated in R six.
Speaker 2: I think I would describe it as bigger than just
Speaker 2: a fraction, because that makes it sound like a very
Speaker 2: small number. It is a substantial proportion, let me feel
Speaker 2: it that way, of the number who participated in AR six.
Speaker 1: Right, So the government funding does affect how many scientists
Speaker 1: can participate, but there are some scientists who are still
Speaker 1: participating as a result of support from other places. Historically,
Speaker 1: the US has produced not just the most amount of emissions,
Speaker 1: which is true it is the second largest emitter, but
Speaker 1: historically the biggest emeter. It has also made the biggest
Speaker 1: contribution in just the volume of science that has fed
Speaker 1: into IPCC reports. That has been changing over the years.
Speaker 1: Other countries have started to do more science, especially China.
Speaker 1: Do you think the withdrawal of the IPCC hurts less
Speaker 1: now than say, if it had happened in the nineteen nineties.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's the case. I mean, if you
Speaker 2: look at the volume of published literature on climate change,
Speaker 2: the startling part for me. I mean, you know, we've
Speaker 2: already said it's doubled every seven year ten ten percent
Speaker 2: growth rate on the US contribution has also increased in
Speaker 2: absolute terms, but it's been declining in relative terms because
Speaker 2: there's been faster growth mainly from two places from China,
Speaker 2: as you've mentioned, but also the European Union through the
Speaker 2: Horizon programs, has made a big difference in terms of
Speaker 2: the footprint. So in terms of published papers, I think, yeah,
Speaker 2: you're right, it has less of an impact. It's obviously
Speaker 2: if that were to disappear, you know, the richness of
Speaker 2: the literature would be diminished, but it wouldn't be the
Speaker 2: end of the story. There would still be things to assess.
Speaker 1: Well, maybe one future question first, then, because institutions like ENCAR,
Speaker 1: the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL, NASA,
Speaker 1: they're all facing under this current Trump administration a huge
Speaker 1: number of cuts that may not affect AR seven because
Speaker 1: a lot of the science is done. But how do
Speaker 1: you think it affects future assessments.
Speaker 2: Well, the very short answer to that is that we
Speaker 2: don't know, because we haven't done the assessment yet, and
Speaker 2: it's up to the authors to assess the available literature. Obviously,
Speaker 2: it's disappointing if the richness of the underlying scientific literature
Speaker 2: is diminished. But as we've seen already in the cycle,
Speaker 2: you know, IPCC is resilient. You know, it continues to operate.
Speaker 2: The plenary sessions are taking place, the assessment activities have
Speaker 2: started up. We will have the first report of the cycle,
Speaker 2: the Special Report and Climate Change in Cities will be
Speaker 2: out by March twenty twenty seven. So the process is working.
Speaker 1: If we look at the fact that the US, as
Speaker 1: the second largest economy historical contributor to science and to emissions,
Speaker 1: is not going to be part of signing off on
Speaker 1: the summary for policy makers, do you think that reduces
Speaker 1: the legitimacy of the ip ACC report and the work
Speaker 1: you do.
Speaker 2: When we get to a final approval session, we have
Speaker 2: one hundred and ninety five countries entitled to participate, and
Speaker 2: typically I don't know, we have maybe one hundred and
Speaker 2: twenty of them in the room. So at any point
Speaker 2: there are seventy of those countries that could participate.
Speaker 1: Not there.
Speaker 2: The country we're mentioning is one of them, but it's
Speaker 2: not the only one.
Speaker 1: Now, since the Paris Agreement was signed, we have these
Speaker 1: synthesis reports that are published every year under the UN
Speaker 1: auspices before going into a cop meeting, and we have
Speaker 1: seen that almost without fail, every year, the projected temperature
Speaker 1: on current trajectory of emissions has been falling, so starting
Speaker 1: from very close to four degrees celsius to the latest
Speaker 1: saying maybe two point five degrees celsius. As part of
Speaker 1: the work that you do under the IPCC, you have
Speaker 1: all these scenarios that allow you to create these temperature projections,
Speaker 1: but you also take into consideration the policies that governments
Speaker 1: are putting in place. We are seeing a reversal on
Speaker 1: climate policies in many places, not just the US. There
Speaker 1: are some places here in Europe, some of the developing
Speaker 1: countries are slowing down. Do you think that we might
Speaker 1: see a reversal in this trend, that maybe future assessments
Speaker 1: will start to push us closer to three degrees celsius again.
Speaker 2: That's something that we, you know, we need to look
Speaker 2: at in the next cycle. I mean just a flag.
Speaker 2: IPCC does not have any scenarios. We assess scenarios that people,
Speaker 2: the scientists outside IPCC produce, so we reliant on the
Speaker 2: range that they come up with. But again you refer
Speaker 2: to the UN synthesis reports. I presume the emissions Gap
Speaker 2: report and the Adaptation Gap report that the UN Environment
Speaker 2: Program producers aren't. They used methodologies that were embedded in
Speaker 2: the previous IPCC reports, so they're using the same methods
Speaker 2: effectively with new data and the numbers that I have
Speaker 2: in my head, if we carry on with current policies,
Speaker 2: we will be about three degrees warming by the end
Speaker 2: of the century. But if we implemented all of the
Speaker 2: nationally determined contributions, depending on whether you take the conditional
Speaker 2: or unconditional elements, you're down to two point two to
Speaker 2: two point five degrees. The future policy is somewhere in
Speaker 2: the band between that two to two point five and three.
Speaker 2: That's probably where the real world will will end up,
Speaker 2: And obviously the decisions that are taken or are not
Speaker 2: taken in the next few years will influence where we are.
Speaker 1: You gave a future warming range based on whatever policy
Speaker 1: makers decide right now between two point five and three
Speaker 1: degrees celsius. Just to be clear, that is still a
Speaker 1: pretty bad world, right it is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean even two degrees is not a pleasant world.
Speaker 2: I mean, just to say, one of the one of
Speaker 2: the earliest indicators is the loss of warm water corals.
Speaker 2: So at one point five degrees we might lose seventy
Speaker 2: five to eighty percent of them. By the time you
Speaker 2: get to two degrees, they're gone basically, So by the
Speaker 2: time you get to two degrees is this is really
Speaker 2: really bad effects. And we're looking at other more complicatedly,
Speaker 2: so you know, for example for agricultural productivity or the
Speaker 2: productivity of fisheries for example, as you get to these
Speaker 2: higher warming levels, which we have implications for food prices,
Speaker 2: et cetera, other sustainable development goals around hunger. So it's
Speaker 2: a nasty world.
Speaker 1: Do you wish that the IPCC did anything differently, given
Speaker 1: we're so off track on actually tackling climate change.
Speaker 2: I don't think the gap lies and the science. I
Speaker 2: think the gap lies in the action. You know, you
Speaker 2: may want to challenge me on it, but I think
Speaker 2: we've done our bit on getting the message across and
Speaker 2: stating it quite clearly, and the fact that we are
Speaker 2: quoted by some many government people, for me, is a
Speaker 2: signal that we have been noticed. The fact that we'd
Speaker 2: create so much attention in the social media on the
Speaker 2: media as another indicator. So I think we're I mean,
Speaker 2: there are obviously things we can do better, and we
Speaker 2: constantly search our souls as it were. But if you
Speaker 2: look at it, I mean, I think the bucket is
Speaker 2: well over half fool in terms of the communication.
Speaker 1: Another aspect of the work that you do is that
Speaker 1: it is informed by policy. Right, the Paris Agreement put
Speaker 1: in this goal for one point five degrees celsius, which
Speaker 1: wasn't there when the IPCC was created, And then the
Speaker 1: government's asked the IPCC to produce a report saying, okay,
Speaker 1: now we have this goal. What must the world do
Speaker 1: to meet the one point five degrees celsius goal? There
Speaker 1: is now growing understanding among scientists that maybe we are
Speaker 1: going to go beyond one point five degrees celsius. You know,
Speaker 1: overshoot is now almost certain. What does that mean for
Speaker 1: the temperature target under the Paris Agreement? If we do overshoot,
Speaker 1: should that target not be in the Paris agreement.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so just on the one point five degrees and
Speaker 2: the role of science and the role of politics. There
Speaker 2: has been an iteration, as it were, between IPCC and
Speaker 2: the unf tripleC process because the fifth assessment cycle that
Speaker 2: reported in twenty fourteen, the conclusions were deriving from that.
Speaker 2: They are the ones that flagged up. There was a
Speaker 2: significant difference in the level of impacts at one point
Speaker 2: five degrees compared with two degrees, which had been the previous,
Speaker 2: previous kind of benchmark, and it was that that inspired
Speaker 2: the governments then to invite IPCC to come up with
Speaker 2: a new report that articulated more clearly what the implications
Speaker 2: of one point five degrees. Now on the question of
Speaker 2: whether you need a new temperature target, that's for politicians
Speaker 2: to decide. I mean, we have clearly indicated the difference
Speaker 2: between one point five and two degrees in terms of impacts,
Speaker 2: and we will go further into that in the next
Speaker 2: cycle in terms of irreversibility, should we go over one
Speaker 2: point five uncome back again, and we'll also look at
Speaker 2: the feasibility of some of the approaches to bringing temperatures
Speaker 2: back down again. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: that's up to politicians, so we can tell them all
Speaker 2: we count about the feasibility, the costs, the environmental implications,
Speaker 2: so we can give them that kind of evidence. It's
Speaker 2: up to them to choose.
Speaker 1: You are the chair, and of course you have to
Speaker 1: be pretty diplomatic in how you communicate the work that
Speaker 1: you do, but you're also among the very few people
Speaker 1: in the world who has i would say, a full
Speaker 1: grasp of how climate change is affecting us and what
Speaker 1: we must do to tackle it. And it's been a
Speaker 1: through line through all the IPCC reports that we know
Speaker 1: more and more what we must do to tackle this problem.
Speaker 1: So this is just asking you, on a very personal level,
Speaker 1: what is the kind of theory of change you have
Speaker 1: in mind that would enable the world to actually follow
Speaker 1: through on the types of many of options that the
Speaker 1: IPCC provides to policymakers. It requires coordination, it requires agreement.
Speaker 1: What kind of theory of change do you believe in? Personally?
Speaker 2: Right just to say, I'm not sure that the phrase
Speaker 2: theory of change actually appears in any IPC. I may
Speaker 2: be wrong on that, but I don't recall it as
Speaker 2: one of the what one of them? Which is a
Speaker 2: very key the key messages. If we break it down
Speaker 2: a little, we can actually say these are the conditions
Speaker 2: that would need to be met in order to move
Speaker 2: forward the enablers for climate action, and one of them
Speaker 2: would be about the role of governments and actually came
Speaker 2: ironically from one of our finance chapters to say, it's
Speaker 2: very difficult to imagine people in the financial sector having
Speaker 2: faith or trust to put their money down on the
Speaker 2: table unless there are very clear messages and signals from
Speaker 2: policy making communities that that's the way you want to go.
Speaker 2: So political will and signaling, I think is an incredibly
Speaker 2: important part of it. But we've also gone down into
Speaker 2: really very great detail on the kinds of policies that
Speaker 2: you could be deployed, the kind of policies that have worked,
Speaker 2: and just to say on what works, I mean, there
Speaker 2: was very strong evidence in the last report that even
Speaker 2: if the world has still been warming up and emissions
Speaker 2: are rising, emissions are less than they otherwise would have
Speaker 2: been because of all the policies that have already been
Speaker 2: put in place. So the last report identified gigatons of
Speaker 2: avoided greenhouse gas emissions through policy action. So we do
Speaker 2: know that things work what they need to do is
Speaker 2: if you want to reduce emissions, is to roll them
Speaker 2: out in a wider range of geographies and make them
Speaker 2: a bit more ambitious. But the kinds of solutions we
Speaker 2: know what they are.
Speaker 1: From your work on sell for emissions which used to
Speaker 1: cause acid rain, and today in most parts of the
Speaker 1: world we don't have acid rain. The solutions were technological
Speaker 1: because you had to create these the sulfurization machines that
Speaker 1: were put on in power plants or in industry, and
Speaker 1: you had to create a business model, through either policy
Speaker 1: or other means, to enable the power plants in the
Speaker 1: industries to actually deploy these machines. Does that work in
Speaker 1: some way inform how you think about the types of
Speaker 1: solutions that we need.
Speaker 2: I'm glad you're recalling all my youthful experiences with sulfur dioxide.
Speaker 2: I used to say, I think there are important differences.
Speaker 2: We succeeded with sulfur dioxide because there were technological solutions,
Speaker 2: and also, to be frank we got lucky with the
Speaker 2: mergence of natural gas, which which actually was not expected
Speaker 2: by people earlier on in the period, and it was
Speaker 2: a it was a free ride to get emissions down
Speaker 2: in a sense the differences with climate change is that
Speaker 2: greenhouse gas emissions touch every aspect of society, you know.
Speaker 2: It's like, that's why the climate talks are as difficult
Speaker 2: as trade talks. They just touch absolutely everything. And so
Speaker 2: the solution is not exclusive, does not exclusively lie in
Speaker 2: the technological domain, though technology will be important, it also
Speaker 2: alies in patterns of consumption behavior almost way the way
Speaker 2: that we live our lives. And in the last chapter
Speaker 2: in Working Group three on Mitigation, we had a whole
Speaker 2: chapter devoted to consumption and patterns patterns of behavior, in
Speaker 2: which we had the very clear message it's not technology,
Speaker 2: it's not people. It's technology and people that interact with
Speaker 2: each other. We need the infrastructure in place, we need
Speaker 2: the technologies available, and needs to be the case that
Speaker 2: people need to make choices in the right direction as well.
Speaker 1: Now you've been involved in climate science in one form
Speaker 1: or the other for forty years, do you ever see us
Speaker 1: getting on a path where there is universal acceptance in
Speaker 1: the need for climate action.
Speaker 2: I don't pin any hopes on that personally, you know,
Speaker 2: I think it is reasonable to expect and it's coming
Speaker 2: in from all sorts of public opinion. Surveys that the
Speaker 2: majority of people acknowledge climate change and are concerned about it,
Speaker 2: and that is potentially enough, you know, for ambitious climate
Speaker 2: action to continue.
Speaker 1: On this podcast, we talk a lot about solutions, and
Speaker 1: often the solutions that come up are renewables, our batteries
Speaker 1: or electric cars. So far we didn't bring them up.
Speaker 1: Are there lesser known areas of progress that people should
Speaker 1: be aware of? Now?
Speaker 2: The big change over the debt last decade has absolutely
Speaker 2: been renewable energy and electrification of demand, principally on the
Speaker 2: transport side. Now, just to say that all of these
Speaker 2: things will only get you a certain distance in if
Speaker 2: you're going to get to targets like one point five
Speaker 2: or even two degrees, you would need to do other
Speaker 2: things as well. And you know, in some ways the
Speaker 2: challenges of the future are even bigger than the ones
Speaker 2: we faced already for renewable energy and electrification or vehicles,
Speaker 2: because it might involve changes in the way that consumers
Speaker 2: behave what they consume, and it might also involve change
Speaker 2: in land use practices as well, and they're both areas
Speaker 2: and where we're looking at billions upon billions of people
Speaker 2: that might be affected there, so I mean what I
Speaker 2: always say about renewable energy. I know it's difficult there
Speaker 2: to put in place a deal for a two gigawater
Speaker 2: offshore windsight, but in some ways, ironically it's easier because
Speaker 2: a small number of people can sit on a corporate
Speaker 2: board and make one big decision that makes a big difference.
Speaker 2: The future measures are really smaller scale measures that involve millions,
Speaker 2: if not billions of people, and that I think is
Speaker 2: where the big challenge lies.
Speaker 1: Let's take cob and capture using storage on which there's
Speaker 1: an ibccrecoming. There was much hope in that technology to
Speaker 1: be deployed and used because technically it can work. It
Speaker 1: needs a business model that needs regulation, but it hasn't
Speaker 1: delivered to the extent that models we're hoping it might.
Speaker 1: What lessons can we learn from carbon capture that might
Speaker 1: come up in other technology aspects well.
Speaker 2: I mean, the difference between renewables and carbon culture and
Speaker 2: storage is renewable energy can't get cheaper than fossil energy,
Speaker 2: but fossil energy with carbon capture can never be cheaper
Speaker 2: than fossil fuel energy on its own, so it's inevitable.
Speaker 2: Renewable energy has now reached a point where it's starting
Speaker 2: to roll. It's gathered momentum. It's cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives.
Speaker 2: Carbon cupture and storage can never be cheaper than the
Speaker 2: alternative by definition, so you need much better articulated business
Speaker 2: models and policy signals to make carbon culture and storage work.
Speaker 2: And you know, some of the initial attempts were by
Speaker 2: carbon capture storage to a specific plant. We've now learned
Speaker 2: that you need to look much more towards clusters bringing
Speaker 2: things together. So the thinking is advancing, but it's a
Speaker 2: different kind of technology. For renewables, it's not so replicable
Speaker 2: because it's often applied to specific sites in specific places
Speaker 2: with specific characteristics. So it's unlikely that you're going to
Speaker 2: get the same rapid learning rates for ccs that we
Speaker 2: once said for renewables.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Professor's key, Thank you, and thank you for
Speaker 1: listening to zero. Now for the sound of the week.
Speaker 1: That is the sound of a European robin singing its
Speaker 1: spring songs. Spring finally seems to be on its way
Speaker 1: here in the UK. If you like this episode, please
Speaker 1: take a moment to read and review the show on
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, YouTube and Spotify. This episode was produced by
Speaker 1: Oscar boyd Our theme music is comp by Wonderly Special
Speaker 1: thanks to Olivia Raudgaard, Eric Rosston, Samarsadi, Laura Milan and
Speaker 1: Sharan chan i'm Akshatrati bak Soon