WEBVTT - The future of climate science without US support 0:00:00.320 --> 0:00:04.280 Welcome to zero I am Akshadrati This week the future 0:00:04.519 --> 0:00:20.200 of climate science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was 0:00:20.200 --> 0:00:23.160 founded in nineteen eighty eight as a United Nations body 0:00:23.480 --> 0:00:27.280 that provides impartial advice to governments about the state of 0:00:27.360 --> 0:00:31.000 climate science. It is best known for producing its assessment 0:00:31.040 --> 0:00:35.400 reports roughly every five years, and they formed the basis 0:00:35.479 --> 0:00:38.600 of policies around the world. The last set of reports, 0:00:38.640 --> 0:00:41.239 known as AR six, were released between twenty twenty one 0:00:41.280 --> 0:00:44.280 and twenty three and made headlines around the world for 0:00:44.360 --> 0:00:48.479 saying that it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed 0:00:48.479 --> 0:00:53.040 the atmosphere, ocean, and land. It may sound obvious now, 0:00:53.400 --> 0:00:56.440 but the level of evidence needed for all scientists to 0:00:56.520 --> 0:01:01.240 agree on unequivocal is nothing short of daggering, and that's 0:01:01.240 --> 0:01:04.760 why it made front page headlines around the world. The 0:01:04.800 --> 0:01:08.320 IPCC's and next set of reports, called AR seven, are 0:01:08.400 --> 0:01:11.160 due to be released between twenty twenty eight and twenty nine, 0:01:11.880 --> 0:01:14.720 and while they no longer need to prove that humans 0:01:14.760 --> 0:01:18.240 are causing climate change, these reports will form the basis 0:01:18.240 --> 0:01:21.440 of the next set of government policies and targets. It's 0:01:21.800 --> 0:01:25.080 vital work and when the reports come out, they will 0:01:25.200 --> 0:01:29.200 make front page headlines again, but the organization is now 0:01:29.240 --> 0:01:33.679 operating in a much more challenging environment, with climate misinformation 0:01:33.800 --> 0:01:37.360 on the rise and the US withdrawing from the IPCC 0:01:37.560 --> 0:01:42.200 process that reduces the contributions to the IPCC's budget and 0:01:42.319 --> 0:01:46.959 cuts the funding for US climate scientists to participate. This 0:01:47.040 --> 0:01:50.360 week on Zero I am joined by Professor Jimski, the 0:01:50.480 --> 0:01:53.560 Chair of the IPCC, to ask what the future of 0:01:53.600 --> 0:01:57.520 the IPCC looks like, whether the organization can survive the 0:01:57.640 --> 0:02:00.640 US's withdrawal, and what kind of questions the next set 0:02:00.640 --> 0:02:08.000 of reports are going to answer. Welcome to the show, 0:02:08.000 --> 0:02:08.680 professors Ki. 0:02:08.919 --> 0:02:11.200 Well, thank you for having me. Very pleased to be here. 0:02:11.480 --> 0:02:15.560 So the IPCC is nearly forty years old and its 0:02:15.600 --> 0:02:19.360 comprehensive reports have formed the basis of how the world 0:02:19.480 --> 0:02:24.440 understands and attempts to tackle climate change, and the work 0:02:24.520 --> 0:02:27.920 is being recognized widely. It even won Nobel Prize in 0:02:27.960 --> 0:02:31.079 two thousand and seven. You became the chair in twenty 0:02:31.120 --> 0:02:33.880 twenty three, and you will preside over what is going 0:02:33.919 --> 0:02:36.600 to be the seventh Assessment report that'll come over the 0:02:36.639 --> 0:02:40.480 next few years. We'll come to the report and we'll 0:02:40.520 --> 0:02:42.320 try and understand a little bit about the science and 0:02:42.360 --> 0:02:45.520 the political moment that we find ourselves in. But if 0:02:45.560 --> 0:02:47.600 you take the big picture of you, how do you 0:02:47.639 --> 0:02:51.720 think the IPCC has evolved to remain effective in these 0:02:51.720 --> 0:02:52.440 four decades. 0:02:52.760 --> 0:02:55.600 Well, I think when IPCC started out, and just to 0:02:55.600 --> 0:02:58.240 say I was not there at the beginning, I'm old, 0:02:58.320 --> 0:03:00.960 but I'm not that old. So I think it was 0:03:01.200 --> 0:03:04.000 a world in which things were actually much more informal. 0:03:04.360 --> 0:03:08.040 You know, a group of scientists got together, obviously under 0:03:08.400 --> 0:03:12.480 intergovernmental auspices, but they were a small number of scientists. 0:03:12.800 --> 0:03:16.160 And as we've gone through the last thirty forty years 0:03:16.200 --> 0:03:19.799 we face challenges. I think we formalized the process as 0:03:19.880 --> 0:03:23.440 much more. Our principles and procedures are much more elaborate. 0:03:23.840 --> 0:03:27.120 We have ways of dealing with any alleged errors that 0:03:27.160 --> 0:03:30.560 occur in reports. We have much more formal ways of 0:03:30.720 --> 0:03:36.160 appointing off authors and criteria for selecting authors. So it's 0:03:36.200 --> 0:03:38.920 a much more disciplined world, if I can put it 0:03:38.960 --> 0:03:41.160 that way, from the world we started in. 0:03:41.560 --> 0:03:44.880 There is right now a group of people who understand 0:03:45.000 --> 0:03:47.920 and are convinced about climate action and who are proceeding 0:03:48.360 --> 0:03:50.840 with taking on many of the steps that the IPCC 0:03:50.960 --> 0:03:54.560 has laid out there is also an has always been 0:03:54.680 --> 0:03:58.080 another group of people who are completely opposed to climate action, 0:03:58.360 --> 0:04:01.960 who are ideologically opposed to it. How do you think 0:04:02.000 --> 0:04:05.440 IPCC's work speaks to that second group of people. 0:04:05.320 --> 0:04:08.560 Well, just to say, it's not IPCC's job to engage 0:04:08.640 --> 0:04:12.000 in advocacy. It's our job to stick to the science, 0:04:12.040 --> 0:04:16.719 and we're not going to enthusiastically engage in big debates 0:04:16.760 --> 0:04:21.160 among advocates either for or against climate change action. So 0:04:21.240 --> 0:04:23.720 what we need to do is to keep putting over 0:04:23.839 --> 0:04:26.719 the messages that we have put over in the reports 0:04:27.120 --> 0:04:31.600 that are solidly rooted in climate science. In the last report, 0:04:31.720 --> 0:04:34.360 we said, and this was one of the strongest IPCC 0:04:34.560 --> 0:04:39.120 statements ever, humans are responsible for the climate change that 0:04:39.160 --> 0:04:43.200 we are seeing, and that evidence is unequivocal. So unequivocal 0:04:43.279 --> 0:04:47.279 is a strong word, but it really reflected the underlying science. 0:04:47.600 --> 0:04:49.080 I've spent a lot of time in the lab. I 0:04:49.120 --> 0:04:51.120 got a PhD in chemistry, and so I have much 0:04:51.160 --> 0:04:55.400 appreciation for the process of science. Why scientists have to 0:04:55.440 --> 0:04:58.760 be precise and measured when they communicate the results that 0:04:58.800 --> 0:05:03.840 they come up with. But in this environment where policy 0:05:03.920 --> 0:05:06.440 is shaped not just by the science, but by people 0:05:06.480 --> 0:05:09.880 who are allowed. You know, you have politicians, you have 0:05:09.920 --> 0:05:14.840 TikTok influencers and YouTube stars, and even respected newspapers who 0:05:15.120 --> 0:05:18.560 publish columns that are completely anti science, that take the 0:05:18.600 --> 0:05:22.919 wrong science on. Given the information ecosystem, how do you 0:05:23.000 --> 0:05:28.559 think IPCC's communication strategy has to evolve in this moment. 0:05:28.839 --> 0:05:32.080 Yeah, I'm really glad you used the word ecosystem in 0:05:32.120 --> 0:05:34.080 your question because I was about to use it in 0:05:34.160 --> 0:05:38.360 my answer. There is a very complex ecosystem of bodies 0:05:38.400 --> 0:05:41.880 addressing climate change, all the way from pure science to 0:05:42.480 --> 0:05:47.240 your advocacy. An IPCC's place in the ecosystem, it's unique 0:05:47.240 --> 0:05:52.440 one is that it's findings represent a consensus between governments 0:05:52.440 --> 0:05:56.760 and scientists. The way that our reports are produced at 0:05:57.000 --> 0:05:59.960 the final stages, and that gives us just a very 0:06:00.080 --> 0:06:04.600 very unique role and a sense of authority. So we 0:06:04.760 --> 0:06:08.440 absolutely it says in our rules our first audiences are 0:06:08.520 --> 0:06:12.279 the UN system and governments, so it's public policy making 0:06:12.320 --> 0:06:15.839 that is our target audience. But we also have secondary 0:06:15.880 --> 0:06:18.479 audiences and we try to get the message out to 0:06:18.560 --> 0:06:21.920 a much wider range of people, whether it's people in business, 0:06:22.120 --> 0:06:26.960 civil society, and NGOs, young people. You know through trying 0:06:27.040 --> 0:06:30.640 to produce, say, fact sheets that summarize the findings of 0:06:30.680 --> 0:06:36.040 IPCC reports. So our communication is absolutely there our first 0:06:36.080 --> 0:06:40.240 one governments in the UN, but we don't ignore other 0:06:40.279 --> 0:06:41.440 audiences as well. 0:06:41.839 --> 0:06:45.839 But when the IBCC comes under attack for political biases, 0:06:46.080 --> 0:06:49.760 for cherry picking all these phrases that Clement denihlysts come 0:06:49.839 --> 0:06:53.080 up with, do you need to respond and be offensive 0:06:53.160 --> 0:06:56.920 about your strategy to respond to the fact that these 0:06:56.920 --> 0:06:59.720 are not based in valid. 0:07:00.960 --> 0:07:04.640 I don't think our communication strategy implies that. You know, 0:07:04.720 --> 0:07:09.240 we we dive into the blogosphere and respond to every 0:07:09.279 --> 0:07:12.320 single comment because there are so many of them out there. 0:07:12.800 --> 0:07:15.800 We do take a measured approach to it. We just 0:07:15.880 --> 0:07:18.960 continue to plug away at the messages, the findings of 0:07:19.040 --> 0:07:23.720 the scientific reports, because the moment we start engaging in 0:07:24.320 --> 0:07:28.400 these in these debates, that's the moment we take away 0:07:28.480 --> 0:07:32.120 from our authority there. So we are very conscious of 0:07:32.200 --> 0:07:33.120 our unique position. 0:07:33.760 --> 0:07:35.240 Do you think that approach is working? 0:07:36.240 --> 0:07:39.120 It's working as well. I mean, if we were to 0:07:39.360 --> 0:07:43.640 engage in the blogosphere, it's not what it's what you 0:07:43.680 --> 0:07:46.880 could lose that we're worried about, not what you could 0:07:47.040 --> 0:07:51.200 actually win. There are huge risks there because it could effectly, 0:07:51.240 --> 0:07:55.080 you know, affect people's perception of us if we are 0:07:55.120 --> 0:07:58.120 perceived to be on one side or another of a debate. 0:07:58.520 --> 0:08:01.280 We are supposed to review all the literature taken to 0:08:01.440 --> 0:08:04.320 count all the possible views, and if we become one 0:08:04.360 --> 0:08:06.800 of the actors in a debate, I think it causes 0:08:06.840 --> 0:08:08.560 a lot of problems reputationally. 0:08:09.160 --> 0:08:12.280 Now let's talk about AR seven and the report that's 0:08:12.280 --> 0:08:14.840 coming and the science that's going to be fed into it. 0:08:15.080 --> 0:08:18.360 IPCC reports that thousands of pages long. They are long 0:08:18.480 --> 0:08:20.320 for a good reason. There's a lot of science that 0:08:20.400 --> 0:08:23.040 goes in there. But you know, you compare it to 0:08:23.160 --> 0:08:25.680 other reports that have come out just for fun. I 0:08:26.040 --> 0:08:29.000 picked one. The US era nuclear Deal was one fifty 0:08:29.080 --> 0:08:34.199 nine pages long. So, after six such assessments that you've done, 0:08:34.280 --> 0:08:38.280 what are big questions that AR seven still needs to 0:08:38.320 --> 0:08:39.480 find ways to answer? 0:08:39.960 --> 0:08:43.120 Right, Yeah, there are several things that will be I mean, 0:08:43.200 --> 0:08:46.680 science enough for sleeps that are always new issues opening up. 0:08:47.160 --> 0:08:49.200 One of the things, it's now almost certain that we 0:08:49.280 --> 0:08:52.200 will exceed global warming of one point five degrees within 0:08:52.240 --> 0:08:56.240 the next few years, so but politicians still maintain this 0:08:56.480 --> 0:08:59.599 aspiration to limit warming to one point five degrees in 0:08:59.640 --> 0:09:03.760 the long which means we will, in the parlance, have 0:09:04.200 --> 0:09:08.200 overshoot of the temperature limit and politicians would aspire to 0:09:08.200 --> 0:09:12.440 bring us back again. And understanding this overshoot is one 0:09:12.440 --> 0:09:15.480 of the big challenges for the next cycle that scientists 0:09:15.520 --> 0:09:18.600 are working on right at the moment there and it 0:09:18.679 --> 0:09:22.440 cuts across all of IPCC because our physical scientists in 0:09:22.480 --> 0:09:25.360 Working Group one need to respond to issue how would 0:09:25.360 --> 0:09:30.079 the Earth system respond to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, 0:09:30.240 --> 0:09:34.080 and it's not fully understood. Our people on impacts and 0:09:34.120 --> 0:09:37.320 adaptation in Working Group two need to understand some of 0:09:37.360 --> 0:09:42.040 the irreversibility and irreversible impacts that might occur as we 0:09:42.080 --> 0:09:45.120 go past one point five degrees that we can't go 0:09:45.240 --> 0:09:47.960 back on even if we bring their temperatures back down. 0:09:48.559 --> 0:09:50.520 And for our colleagues in Working Group three on the 0:09:50.559 --> 0:09:55.480 mitigation side, which means removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere 0:09:55.600 --> 0:09:59.120 as well as reducing emissions, the big challenge is there 0:09:59.160 --> 0:10:02.760 there are many new, more technological approaches to removing carbon 0:10:02.800 --> 0:10:05.920 dioxide from the atmosphere that have yet to be addressed 0:10:05.920 --> 0:10:10.080 fully in IPCC reports or the underlying science. So there's 0:10:10.160 --> 0:10:14.480 just a huge agenda round that particular issue. 0:10:14.160 --> 0:10:16.720 And it's very important that we understand the science before 0:10:16.800 --> 0:10:20.080 we start spending billions and maybe trillions of dollars that's 0:10:20.080 --> 0:10:22.560 what may be needed for the type of carbon removal 0:10:22.600 --> 0:10:26.080 we are talking about. When you say that there are 0:10:26.160 --> 0:10:34.280 still questions and uncertainties, where are those uncertainties the biggest. 0:10:34.520 --> 0:10:38.240 Well, the uncertainties go right through it, because we obviously 0:10:38.320 --> 0:10:41.600 haven't done physically all the things that we might need 0:10:41.640 --> 0:10:45.080 to do in terms of carbon dioxide removal. We don't 0:10:45.200 --> 0:10:48.079 understand what the costs are. There are lots of claims 0:10:48.120 --> 0:10:50.400 out there, but we haven't done it at a commercial 0:10:50.440 --> 0:10:54.000 scale as yet. And then there are other issues about 0:10:54.000 --> 0:10:59.800 the feasibility. They're very reliant on resources like energy, water, 0:11:00.280 --> 0:11:04.840 land availability, and there may be political acceptance issues as well. 0:11:05.000 --> 0:11:07.960 So all of these issues around feasibility are going to 0:11:08.000 --> 0:11:09.319 need to be addressed as well. 0:11:09.559 --> 0:11:10.959 There are other things that have come up in the 0:11:11.040 --> 0:11:14.280 last few years, so there has been some talk about 0:11:14.559 --> 0:11:17.520 perhaps we are on a faster warming track than was 0:11:17.600 --> 0:11:21.160 previously taught, and especially the years of twenty three and 0:11:21.200 --> 0:11:25.400 twenty four were those piers when people really were alarmed 0:11:25.440 --> 0:11:27.760 by the types of impact that we were seeing at 0:11:27.760 --> 0:11:31.600 that temperature. Is the IPCC looking to answer that question 0:11:31.679 --> 0:11:32.520 in the next report. 0:11:32.679 --> 0:11:35.480 Yeah, I mean the last report didn't get quite there 0:11:35.600 --> 0:11:37.880 in terms of answering that because we were seeing some 0:11:39.120 --> 0:11:41.880 very unusual kind of things happening just as the last 0:11:41.920 --> 0:11:45.120 reports came out. I think the conclusion that we've got 0:11:45.160 --> 0:11:48.520 so far in terms of global indicators, we are right 0:11:48.600 --> 0:11:52.160 at the edge of the envelope of projections that were 0:11:52.200 --> 0:11:55.679 previously produced, but we have not yet gone outside the 0:11:55.960 --> 0:11:58.680 envelope as yet. Now that's not the case for more 0:11:58.679 --> 0:12:02.280 local indicators, for example in specific regions of the world, 0:12:02.600 --> 0:12:05.720 or for example for the oceans where we've seen heat 0:12:05.760 --> 0:12:09.040 waves in the oceans in particular places that are quite 0:12:09.280 --> 0:12:12.440 you know, are really not well understood. They're outside what 0:12:12.679 --> 0:12:16.040 was projected. So yeah, we've got to dive into that 0:12:16.240 --> 0:12:17.560 over the next three years or so. 0:12:18.040 --> 0:12:21.720 You got started in the climate side of the equation 0:12:22.160 --> 0:12:24.840 or the environmental side of the equation through sulfur pollution 0:12:25.480 --> 0:12:30.800 in your early research in the US. Most recently, sulfur 0:12:30.800 --> 0:12:34.000 pollution came up as an issue where because the shipping 0:12:34.000 --> 0:12:37.640 fuels are getting cleaner, there were places around the Mediterranean 0:12:37.960 --> 0:12:40.920 in the North Atlantic that saw higher warming. Is that 0:12:41.040 --> 0:12:43.480 the type of question that needs to also be answered. 0:12:43.840 --> 0:12:47.840 Yeah, So the question sulfur dioxide is important because you know, 0:12:48.360 --> 0:12:51.080 in the atmosphere, it tends to cool the atmosphere rather 0:12:51.160 --> 0:12:53.120 than warm it top. So if you take the sulfur 0:12:53.200 --> 0:12:57.120 dioxide away, temperatures will be higher than the otherwise would 0:12:57.120 --> 0:12:59.800 have been. So, yeah, that's the one of the important 0:12:59.800 --> 0:13:03.600 things that we do need to consider. Now we have 0:13:04.040 --> 0:13:08.240 a part of IPCC that not many people have necessarily noticed, 0:13:08.320 --> 0:13:12.160 called the Task Force or National Greenhouse Gas Inventories or 0:13:12.200 --> 0:13:16.720 the TFI, and it has been charged with developing methods 0:13:17.040 --> 0:13:22.480 by which governments can report their emissions of pollutants like 0:13:22.559 --> 0:13:26.240 sulfur dioxide to the unf Triple C in the future 0:13:26.559 --> 0:13:29.360 so that these things can be taken into account. It's 0:13:29.400 --> 0:13:33.560 one of two methodology reports that the TFI will produce 0:13:33.679 --> 0:13:37.120 during the cycle, the other one being on carbon dioxide 0:13:37.120 --> 0:13:41.479 removal technologies, on carbon culture utilization and storage. 0:13:41.600 --> 0:13:45.360 There's also been the use of artificial intelligence, which I 0:13:45.400 --> 0:13:48.199 would say is new. You know, there was machine learning 0:13:48.200 --> 0:13:51.440 in the previous cycle, I guess, but today it is 0:13:51.559 --> 0:13:56.200 much faster. It's being used more widely. There could be 0:13:56.280 --> 0:14:02.600 applications for how IPCC scientists collate the information to put 0:14:02.640 --> 0:14:06.600 into reports. How is AI being seen, both from the 0:14:06.600 --> 0:14:09.720 perspective of the reports itself and making of the report. 0:14:09.840 --> 0:14:13.040 Yeah, it's important for everybody, and it's important for us 0:14:13.080 --> 0:14:15.679 as well, and that's actually why we ran a three 0:14:15.800 --> 0:14:19.680 day workshop last week at the University of Reading on 0:14:20.120 --> 0:14:24.960 specifically the topic of methods assessment on artificial intelligence and 0:14:25.040 --> 0:14:28.080 large language models played a big role in that. Now 0:14:28.120 --> 0:14:31.320 that meeting finished just three days ago, so I'm not 0:14:31.440 --> 0:14:34.520 quite in a position to report on the findings, but 0:14:34.600 --> 0:14:39.000 it's very clear that AI has implications all the way 0:14:39.040 --> 0:14:44.080 through from discovery of literature. It may actually improve the process. 0:14:45.040 --> 0:14:48.880 It can help us perhaps with addressing the thousands upon 0:14:49.000 --> 0:14:52.040 thousands of review comments that we get on each of 0:14:52.080 --> 0:14:54.920 our individual drafts. But one thing to be very sure, 0:14:54.960 --> 0:14:58.000 and this is a very solid conclusion. When every IPCC 0:14:58.160 --> 0:15:01.200 report comes out, the authors are told you are going 0:15:01.240 --> 0:15:04.160 to be responsible for all of the content, and there's 0:15:04.200 --> 0:15:06.400 no way you can just turn it over to AI 0:15:06.840 --> 0:15:08.920 and use that to excuse so it needs to be 0:15:09.040 --> 0:15:11.880 checked and I think a very big conclusion this is 0:15:11.920 --> 0:15:16.120 about the interaction with human beings and technology technology is 0:15:16.120 --> 0:15:18.160 not going to solve the problems here. We need the 0:15:18.200 --> 0:15:21.680 people as part of the process. On one particular area 0:15:21.760 --> 0:15:25.240 where it's important that the humans there are assigning the 0:15:25.280 --> 0:15:29.160 confidence level in findings, and we really can't find a 0:15:29.160 --> 0:15:32.520 way in which AI can really substantially help us with that. 0:15:33.040 --> 0:15:35.200 A lot of judgment is still needed there. 0:15:35.880 --> 0:15:38.160 That's exactly what our editors see to us as well. 0:15:38.200 --> 0:15:41.479 Every word that's published by us is under our byline. 0:15:41.720 --> 0:15:44.280 If we use AI for research, etc. That's on us. 0:15:44.320 --> 0:15:48.320 If AI makes mistaken republish it, that's on me, not 0:15:48.480 --> 0:15:52.360 the AI. So I think that's important from a place 0:15:52.400 --> 0:15:56.200 of bringing trust, But it also points me to a 0:15:56.280 --> 0:15:59.680 place where you know IPCC reports, they are long, and 0:15:59.720 --> 0:16:02.560 they're big, and they come every five to seven years 0:16:03.160 --> 0:16:06.000 kind of the amount of time it takes. But every 0:16:06.040 --> 0:16:10.440 assessment report, one of the scientists told us, is now 0:16:10.560 --> 0:16:13.840 packed with double the amount of research compared to the 0:16:13.880 --> 0:16:17.080 previous one. So the rate at which climate science research 0:16:17.160 --> 0:16:21.680 is happening is also growing. Isn't there then a case 0:16:21.720 --> 0:16:24.480 to be made that despite how much work it takes, 0:16:24.520 --> 0:16:27.120 you actually need to be publishing this report these reports 0:16:27.280 --> 0:16:31.560 more frequently. Given our understanding is improving more quickly. 0:16:31.840 --> 0:16:35.720 Well, ideally, I think it would be wonderful if we 0:16:35.760 --> 0:16:40.720 could produce reports more quickly, But the authority of IPCC 0:16:41.040 --> 0:16:44.520 actually comes from the rigor of the review processes that 0:16:44.600 --> 0:16:47.760 we go through, and it is not really possible to 0:16:47.880 --> 0:16:52.440 imagine getting a report completed from the point the governments 0:16:52.440 --> 0:16:55.960 decide to produce one till the final approval of less 0:16:56.000 --> 0:16:58.920 than about three to four years for doing it, because 0:16:59.240 --> 0:17:01.720 we have to have a scoping meeting the governments and 0:17:01.760 --> 0:17:04.560 I need to sign off the scope, and only then 0:17:04.640 --> 0:17:07.119 can we even start selecting authors who need to be 0:17:07.200 --> 0:17:11.040 nominated by governments and observers. And we go through two 0:17:11.119 --> 0:17:14.840 external drafts, a so called first order draft for experts, 0:17:15.119 --> 0:17:18.119 a second order draft for experts and governments, and the 0:17:18.160 --> 0:17:21.240 summary for policymakers then goes out once again to governments, 0:17:21.560 --> 0:17:24.360 even before we go to that crucial approval session where 0:17:24.440 --> 0:17:27.760 we crawl through the summary word for word, line line 0:17:27.800 --> 0:17:29.760 for line, and by the time you add up all 0:17:29.800 --> 0:17:31.840 the gaps and the time and take account of the 0:17:31.920 --> 0:17:35.320 time that our authors need because they're all volunteers taking 0:17:35.400 --> 0:17:38.639 time out of their day jobs, that's the answer. So 0:17:38.800 --> 0:17:41.960 you couldn't do it more quickly unless you were able 0:17:42.000 --> 0:17:44.520 to you were willing to compromise on some of the 0:17:44.600 --> 0:17:49.040 rigor of the reports. So I think for me, we've 0:17:49.200 --> 0:17:53.119 given our unique status. I don't see the prospect of 0:17:53.200 --> 0:17:54.880 speeding it up hugely. 0:17:54.720 --> 0:17:58.240 But there's a risk of missing major moments because this 0:17:58.320 --> 0:18:01.360 new IBC support will come into twenty eight and onwards, 0:18:01.400 --> 0:18:03.280 it will take a while because it takes about fifteen 0:18:03.280 --> 0:18:06.440 to eighteen months to publish the entire thing. The next 0:18:06.440 --> 0:18:09.040 global stock take, which happens as part of the United 0:18:09.080 --> 0:18:12.360 Nations Cup process, is supposed to happen in twenty twenty eight, 0:18:12.800 --> 0:18:15.960 and it only happens every five years, and that stock 0:18:16.000 --> 0:18:19.520 take then feeds into the climate goals that government set 0:18:19.800 --> 0:18:22.240 in the future. So we currently got twenty thirty five 0:18:22.280 --> 0:18:26.120 goals last year that were said because of the previous 0:18:26.240 --> 0:18:29.160 stock tag that happened in twenty twenty three. So now 0:18:29.200 --> 0:18:31.600 that air sim is not going to come in that cycle, 0:18:32.240 --> 0:18:36.200 it's not going to feed into policymaker's decisions. Isn't that 0:18:36.640 --> 0:18:41.320 a lost opportunity for the IPCC to inform policymakers with 0:18:41.359 --> 0:18:42.159 the latest science. 0:18:42.280 --> 0:18:45.680 Right, You're touching on one of the most tricky issues 0:18:45.720 --> 0:18:48.399 that we have faced in the seventh cycle, which is 0:18:48.480 --> 0:18:51.720 the timing of the production of the reports, and some 0:18:51.920 --> 0:18:55.720 of our governments would attach a priority to completing the 0:18:55.800 --> 0:18:59.439 work in time for the conclusion of the second Global 0:18:59.480 --> 0:19:03.600 stock take. Others are emphasizing other issues, like, for example, 0:19:03.680 --> 0:19:07.359 the time it takes for authors from developing countries to 0:19:07.400 --> 0:19:11.840 publish literature that can be assessed by IPCC. So there 0:19:11.840 --> 0:19:15.040 are differences of view. So just where we're the reports 0:19:15.080 --> 0:19:19.320 will certainly under any scenario start to come out in 0:19:19.359 --> 0:19:22.120 the middle of twenty twenty eight, so at least some 0:19:22.160 --> 0:19:24.679 of the output will be there in time for the 0:19:24.680 --> 0:19:27.800 conclusion of the second Global stock Take. The other ones 0:19:27.840 --> 0:19:31.040 we don't know about because our governments have yet to decide. 0:19:31.240 --> 0:19:33.720 And I'm just the humble chair of IPCC. You know, 0:19:34.000 --> 0:19:37.080 I'm not directing the thing from the top. The government 0:19:37.160 --> 0:19:40.400 is an intergovernmental panel. It's the governments who need to decide, 0:19:40.600 --> 0:19:43.320 and they have yet to decide on the timeline. So 0:19:43.359 --> 0:19:44.840 we wait and see. But at least some of the 0:19:44.880 --> 0:19:49.480 output I think will be available. Worthwhile also saying that 0:19:49.600 --> 0:19:52.399 the second Global stock take under the Paris Agreement is 0:19:52.440 --> 0:19:55.800 not the only event that is taking place during this decade. 0:19:56.119 --> 0:19:59.880 Because there will be another periodic review under the Convention 0:20:00.119 --> 0:20:03.600 itself of the long term goal of the Convention in 0:20:03.640 --> 0:20:07.440 twenty twenty nine, and we would expect, regardless of the scenario, 0:20:07.760 --> 0:20:11.280 the output to be available for that particular point. 0:20:15.280 --> 0:20:17.560 After the break. How much does it matter that the 0:20:17.680 --> 0:20:20.840 US has been drawn from the IPCC. If you have 0:20:20.880 --> 0:20:23.360 thoughts on the episode, write to us at zero port 0:20:23.400 --> 0:20:26.040 at Bloomberg dot net. And if you've got a moment, 0:20:26.240 --> 0:20:29.320 please write us a review on Apple podcast, Spotify, and YouTube, 0:20:29.600 --> 0:20:32.440 where you can find our archive of over one hundred 0:20:32.440 --> 0:20:50.680 and seventy episodes. Let's come to the politics, because politics 0:20:50.720 --> 0:20:54.080 does affect you in indirect ways, if not direct ways. 0:20:54.520 --> 0:20:57.680 The US has been drawn from the IPCC. How does 0:20:57.680 --> 0:21:01.560 that affect US scientist's contribution to the IPCC. 0:21:01.760 --> 0:21:06.720 Well, even though the US has informed us that will 0:21:06.760 --> 0:21:09.879 not participate. Now, just to say, IPCC does not have 0:21:09.960 --> 0:21:13.840 a membership list. Its rules say that any government that 0:21:13.920 --> 0:21:16.359 as a member of the UN or the World Meteorological 0:21:16.440 --> 0:21:23.320 Organization can participate. So some countries may choose not to participate. 0:21:23.400 --> 0:21:26.400 And you know that's the way it is. In terms 0:21:26.520 --> 0:21:29.639 of people who are contributing to the cycle. We have 0:21:29.760 --> 0:21:34.040 around fifty US scientists who are involved in the seventh 0:21:34.040 --> 0:21:39.919 Assessment Report, and these were nominated by observer organizations and 0:21:40.040 --> 0:21:44.960 their travel and subsistence is being funded by philanthropic bodies. 0:21:45.240 --> 0:21:47.399 So that's where we are, and we still have US 0:21:47.440 --> 0:21:51.320 science represented in the in the reports. 0:21:51.760 --> 0:21:54.200 But that's a fraction of the number of US scientists 0:21:54.200 --> 0:21:56.600 that would have participated in R six. 0:21:57.280 --> 0:21:59.600 I think I would describe it as bigger than just 0:21:59.600 --> 0:22:02.120 a fraction, because that makes it sound like a very 0:22:02.160 --> 0:22:07.080 small number. It is a substantial proportion, let me feel 0:22:07.080 --> 0:22:09.800 it that way, of the number who participated in AR six. 0:22:09.960 --> 0:22:12.320 Right, So the government funding does affect how many scientists 0:22:12.320 --> 0:22:14.879 can participate, but there are some scientists who are still 0:22:14.920 --> 0:22:19.600 participating as a result of support from other places. Historically, 0:22:19.680 --> 0:22:23.440 the US has produced not just the most amount of emissions, 0:22:23.440 --> 0:22:25.439 which is true it is the second largest emitter, but 0:22:25.560 --> 0:22:29.040 historically the biggest emeter. It has also made the biggest 0:22:29.160 --> 0:22:32.520 contribution in just the volume of science that has fed 0:22:32.520 --> 0:22:36.760 into IPCC reports. That has been changing over the years. 0:22:37.160 --> 0:22:40.760 Other countries have started to do more science, especially China. 0:22:40.920 --> 0:22:44.680 Do you think the withdrawal of the IPCC hurts less 0:22:44.720 --> 0:22:47.680 now than say, if it had happened in the nineteen nineties. 0:22:48.280 --> 0:22:50.800 Yeah, I think that's the case. I mean, if you 0:22:50.840 --> 0:22:54.680 look at the volume of published literature on climate change, 0:22:54.840 --> 0:22:56.920 the startling part for me. I mean, you know, we've 0:22:56.960 --> 0:23:00.879 already said it's doubled every seven year ten ten percent 0:23:01.400 --> 0:23:06.399 growth rate on the US contribution has also increased in 0:23:06.480 --> 0:23:10.320 absolute terms, but it's been declining in relative terms because 0:23:10.359 --> 0:23:13.919 there's been faster growth mainly from two places from China, 0:23:14.080 --> 0:23:17.119 as you've mentioned, but also the European Union through the 0:23:17.160 --> 0:23:20.920 Horizon programs, has made a big difference in terms of 0:23:20.960 --> 0:23:24.600 the footprint. So in terms of published papers, I think, yeah, 0:23:24.920 --> 0:23:28.399 you're right, it has less of an impact. It's obviously 0:23:28.720 --> 0:23:32.359 if that were to disappear, you know, the richness of 0:23:32.400 --> 0:23:35.119 the literature would be diminished, but it wouldn't be the 0:23:35.240 --> 0:23:37.840 end of the story. There would still be things to assess. 0:23:38.600 --> 0:23:43.840 Well, maybe one future question first, then, because institutions like ENCAR, 0:23:44.000 --> 0:23:50.760 the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL, NASA, 0:23:50.840 --> 0:23:54.480 they're all facing under this current Trump administration a huge 0:23:54.520 --> 0:23:59.120 number of cuts that may not affect AR seven because 0:23:59.119 --> 0:24:02.399 a lot of the science is done. But how do 0:24:02.480 --> 0:24:04.440 you think it affects future assessments. 0:24:04.760 --> 0:24:07.399