The third part of the landmark scientific report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – which could be the latest comprehensive climate science assessment to be published while there is still time to prevent the worst disasters of the climate collapse – will be published on Monday. warning that the world is not shifting fast enough to a low carbon economy. But the previous installment of the huge report – known as IPCC Working Group 2 – was released a month ago, just as Russia invaded Ukraine, and received only tacit attention, despite warnings of catastrophic and irreversible upheaval. avoid minimal emergency action now. Scientists told the Observer that Monday’s new scientific warning should push governments into delayed action. Deborah Brosnan, an assistant professor of biology at Virginia Tech University and a scientific adviser, told the Observer: “This [working group 2] the report was widely expected, but completely ignored. “Mostly overshadowed by the war in Ukraine and domestic issues such as inflation, most major media outlets have barely reported how much to analyze the findings.” He said people were shocked by the war in Ukraine and worried about rising prices, but that the climate crisis also needed urgent attention. “The war in Ukraine is a terrible tragedy unfolding before our eyes and families rightly fear that it will lead to poverty from inflation. “However, we are blind to the fact that an even greater and existential crisis is already unfolding today – a crisis that will lead to a global humanitarian crisis on a scale never seen before.” Daniela Schmidt, a professor at the University of Bristol and one of the lead authors of the Working Group 2 report, said that the current turmoil in the world shows how vulnerable we are to the effects of the climate crisis, which is already being felt. Policy makers should consider where their resources are allocated, he advised. “Because of the geopolitical challenges, little political capacity is being spent on climate action and huge amounts of funding are being spent on defense,” he told the Observer. “[But] “The current situation also clearly shows the widespread vulnerability of people to climate change.” A previous report was made at a press conference by the Swiss Academy of Sciences in Bern last August. Photo: Alessandro Della Valle / EPA Governments have at least woken up to the problem behind the scenes, said Bob Ward, director of policy at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at the London School of Economics. “The IPCC report has struggled to gain attention. But while public debate may have been silent, governments around the world are now studying the details of the report, and in particular its findings on how to make countries, companies and communities more resilient to its effects. climate change that can no longer be avoided “. said Ward. The report, due out Monday, will look at ways governments and the public can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including increased use of renewable energy sources, tree growing and cutting-edge technology for absorption. carbon from the air. But his warnings – that people are failing to develop these methods on the scale needed to limit global warming to 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels – will be erased by the IPCC bureaucracy. The report itself – part 3 of the Sixth Climate Science Assessment to be published by the IPCC since its inception in 1988 – is based on thousands of scientific papers from the last seven years. But the main document released Monday, the summary for policymakers, could be 20 to 30 pages, consisting of a series of short messages and data. These messages are the subject of intense controversy by both scientists and governments. According to IPCC methods, all governments have the right to make changes to the final summary – and some exercise those rights by reducing findings and vetoing some of the strongest statements. Saudi Arabia, India, China and some other countries have tried to make changes that will weaken the final warnings, the Observer understands. Some governments want to avoid policy advice, such as cutting subsidies on fossil fuels, even though they are widely supported by top authorities. This process of improvement – which has also been complained about in previous chapters of the IPCC evaluation – is supported by some as the production of a document that all governments must “own” as all have contributed. But many scientists are becoming increasingly frustrated as it creates a conservative and sometimes weakening document that many believe does not reflect the urgency and shocking nature of the threat.
