'Make no mistake, inaction and delays are not options': Latest IPCC report has been approved

 

Huts made of branches and cloth provide shelter to Somalis displaced by drought on the outskirts of Dollow, Somalia.   -  Copyright  AP Photo/Jerome Delay, File

By Rosie Frost  with AP  •  Updated: 20/03/2023 - 14:29 ~Euronews

Governments gave their blessing on Sunday to a major new UN report on climate change, after approval was held up by a battle between rich and developing countries over emissions targets and financial aid to vulnerable nations.

The report by hundreds of the world’s top scientists was supposed to be approved by government delegations on Friday at the end of a weeklong meeting in the Swiss town of Interlaken.

The closing gavel was repeatedly pushed back as officials from big nations such as China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the United States and the European Union haggled through the weekend over the wording of key phrases in the text.

The report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) caps a series that digests vast amounts of research on global warming compiled since the Paris climate accord was agreed in 2015.

A summary of the report was approved early Sunday but agreement on the main text dragged on for several more hours, with some observers fearing it might need to be postponed.

The UN plans to publish the report at a news conference this afternoon.

The unusual process of having countries sign off on a scientific report is intended to ensure that governments accept its findings as authoritative advice on which to base their actions.

An article about the published report is available here.

What is the IPCC report?

Since it was founded in 1988, the IPCC has published six sets of these assessments so far. They are the most comprehensive and authoritative evidence about human-caused climate change.

And, as the consequences of climate change become ever more pressing, today’s publication is shaping up to be a “fundamental” document for the future of climate action.

• 
  
  

What can we expect from the latest IPCC report?

Every five to seven years, the IPCC publishes a series of reports that summarise the latest information about climate change. The reports come from the work of three different working groups that focus on the science of climate change, its impacts and potential solutions.

It has also published 14 ‘special reports’ which focus on specific areas including aviation, emissions and oceans.

Today’s Synthesis Report from the IPCC is the final one of the cycle and draws on information from the six reports published so far, highlighting the key points from the three working groups.

Each of these reports featured strong statements on the reality of climate change from the “unequivocal” consensus that human activity is causing it to the risks faced by half of humanity. Today’s is likely to feature similarly bold headlines.

Who writes the IPCC report?

The IPCC is made up of 195 member countries.

Hundreds of scientists work together to gather evidence about climate change from all over the world. They review it all and come to a consensus, identifying the key messages in the thousands of studies that are published every year.

It is a collaborative effort between governments and scientists with each line in a report negotiated and approved by all IPCC members. This process ensures that the information included is not only scientifically accurate but also relevant for the governments involved.

An analysis by UK news outlet Carbon Brief shows that over the last 30 years, women and experts from the Global South have gained greater representation within the IPCC. They are still underrepresented, however.

In 1990, fewer than 10 per cent of the 100 authors were women and less than 20 per cent came from the Global South. The current assessment cycle has 700 authors with 30 per cent women and more than 40 per cent from the Global South.

• 
  
  

Why do we need these IPCC reports?

The conclusions the IPCC comes up with are used by governments, businesses, and communities - everyone looking to understand the cause and effect of climate change - to make choices in the future.

They show what the reality of climate change is and give a blueprint for the urgent action the world needs to take.

IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee told a panel meeting that the Synthesis Report will become a “fundamental policy document for shaping climate action in the remainder of this pivotal decade.”

It also provides a framework for scientists to coordinate their efforts. Reporting cycles are synched up with an international scientific effort and experiments are carried out to test the reliability of our current climate change models.

PARIS AGREEMENT ON CLIMATEIPCCUNITED NATIONSREPORTCLIMATE CHANGESCIENCE

Climate Change will "costworld far more than estimated"

Blogger Ref Link http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics

1 / 1

A bulldozer operates atop a coal mound at the CCI Energy Slones Branch Terminal in Shelbiana, Kentucky

Getty

Lord Stern says current models do not adequately reflect the science and the impact on global economies  

Tom Bawden

Monday 16 June 2014 /Independent UK

 

Your friend's email address

Your email address

Note: We do not store your email address(es) but your IP address will be logged to prevent abuse of this feature. Please read our Legal Terms & Policies

Lord Stern, the world’s most authoritative climate economist, has issued a stark warning that the financial damage caused by global warming will be considerably greater than current models predict.

This makes it more important than ever to take urgent and drastic action to curb climate change by reducing carbon emissions, he argues.
Lord Stern, who wrote a hugely influential review on the financial implications of climate change in 2006, says the economic models that have been used to calculate the fiscal fallout from climate change are woefully inadequate and severely underestimate the scale of the threat.
As a result, even the recent and hugely authoritative series of reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are significantly flawed, he said.
“It is extremely important to understand the severe limitations of standard economic models, such as those cited in the IPCC report, which have made assumptions that simply do not reflect current knowledge about climate change and its ... impacts on the economy,” said Lord Stern, a professor at the Grantham Institute, a research centre at the London School of Economics.
Professor Stern and his colleague Dr Simon Dietz will today publish the peer-reviewed findings of their research into climate change economic modelling in the The Economic Journal.
Lord Stern says the fiscal fallout that has been calculated is woefully inadequate (AFP/Getty)
Their review is highly critical of established economic models which, among other things, fail to acknowledge the full breadth of climate change’s likely impact on the economy and are predicated on assumptions about global warming’s effect on output that are “without scientific foundation”.
Professor Stern, whose earlier research said it is far cheaper to tackle climate change now than in the future, added: “I hope our paper will prompt ... economists to strive for much better models [and] ... help policy-makers and the public recognise the immensity of the potential risks of unmanaged climate change.”
“Models that assume catastrophic damages are not possible fail to take account of the magnitude of the issues and the implications of the science,” he said.
Professor Stern and Dr Dietz say their findings strengthen the case for strong cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and imply that, unless this happens, living standards could even start to decline later this century.
For the study, they modified key features of the “dynamic integrated climate-economy” (Dice) model, initially devised by William Nordhaus in the 1990s. The changes take into account the latest scientific findings and some of the uncertainties about the major risks of climate change that are usually omitted.
The standard Dice model has been used in a wide range of economic studies of the potential impacts of climate change, some of which have been cited in the most recent IPCC report which has been released in three parts over the past nine months.
Dr Dietz said: “While this standard economic model has been useful for economists who estimate the potential impacts of climate change, our paper shows some major improvements are needed before it can reflect the extent of the risks indicated by the science.”
Dr Dietz said his aim was to show how a new version of the model could produce a range of results that are much more representative of the science and economics of climate change, taking into account the uncertainties.
“The new version of this standard economic model, for instance, suggests that the risks from climate change are bigger than portrayed by previous economic models and therefore strengthens the case for strong cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases,” he said.
The new model differs in that it considers a wider temperature range when estimating the impact of doubling the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases – a measure of “climate sensitivity”.
Whereas the standard model usually assumes a single temperature for climate sensitivity of about 3C, the new model uses a range of 1.5C to 6C, which the authors say more accurately reflects the scientific consensus.
The standard model also “implausibly” suggests a loss of global output of 50 per cent would only result after a rise in global average temperature of 18C, even though such warming would likely render the Earth uninhabitable for most species, including humans, Dr Dietz contends.
The new model includes the possibility that such damage could occur at much lower levels of global warming. Standard economic models rule out the possibility that global warming of 5-6C above pre-industrial levels could cause catastrophic damages, even though such temperatures have not occurred on Earth for tens of millions of years. Such an assertion, he says, is without scientific foundation and embodies a false assumption that the risks are known, with great confidence, to be small.
The new model also takes into account that climate change can damage not just economic output, but productivity. The standard model assumes that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere only affect economic growth in a very limited way, according to Dr Dietz.

Chasing Rainbows

 

 

 

Chasing Rainbows by Tim Worstall



Blogger Ref Link http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics

 

 

 

Publication Date: 30 Nov 2010 /Ref Amazon

 

 

Chasing Rainbows looks at what the commonly held beliefs are about what we should do to avoid, curtail or adapt to global warming and compares them to what we should actually be doing. This is not an argument about the science: Worstall leaves that entirely to others to debate. Rather, what guides and indications can we get from the economics already embedded in such things as the IPCC reports and the Stern Review. The answers will shock some: globalisation is part of the cure for climate change. Recycling of some things certainly saves resources but of domestic waste actually wastes them. Creating green jobs is not a benefit but a cost of our actions. Drawing on the official reports that most agree is the scientific consensus and adding insights from economic theory, Worstall is able to show that much of what we're told we should do to save the planet is in fact wrong, diametrically opposed in many cases to what we should really be doing. It's not only desirable to have a cleaner, greener, richer world, it's also possible, and Worstall lays out what we need to do to achieve this. The 'Bishop Hill' blog recommended that this book 'should probably be gifted to every teenager as they leave the school system', while 'Stumbling and Mumbling' wrote that '...there are some brilliant flourishes. His idiot cousin metaphor for comparative advantage verges on the genius.