Talks on the final draft of the latest Climate Science Assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lasted hours after Sunday’s deadline. Scientists and governments have disagreed on questions such as how much funding developing countries might need to tackle the climate crisis and how much emphasis will be placed on policies such as the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies. Governments have been accused of trying to weaken the scientists’ findings, which were originally scheduled to be published early Monday but were postponed for six hours later that day after delays and controversy on Sunday. The Guardian understands that India has called for major changes in issues such as economics, along with Saudi Arabia, which wants to reaffirm the continued role of fossil fuels, while other countries, such as China and Ecuador, have also taken a stand. Russia has played a more silent role than some feared. Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate at the Tyndall Center for Climate Research at the University of Manchester, one of the UK’s leading climate academics, called for scientists to prevail. “I hope the Working Group 3 [the IPCC section about to be published] has the courage to really call for the elimination of the production and use of fossil fuels in a Paris [agreement] compatible schedule, “he said. This is the third part of the most recent IPCC milestone assessment and the most controversial because it covers the policies, technologies and economics required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The first part, covering the natural science of climate change, was published last August, showing that the world had only a small chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 C. The second, published just over a month ago, showed the devastating effects of 1.5 C heating, but was overshadowed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The report itself – hundreds of pages and based on the work of thousands of scientists over the past eight years – has been edited, but the crucial “summary for policymakers”, a selection of key messages that spans only about 40 pages, remains controversial. While the report is written by scientists, the summary – which is the key reference document for governments – is written with the input of any UN Member State wishing to be represented. The latest warning from the IPCC – the last installment of its mammoth overall rating – comes ahead of a synthetic report in October gathering its key messages for the Cop27 summit on climate change in Egypt in November. at a critical time. Many countries, including the US, the EU and the United Kingdom, are reconsidering their dependence on fossil fuels in the light of the war in Ukraine, which has pushed already high energy prices to record levels. Energy is now considered a matter of national security and the cost of living crisis in many countries is forcing governments to reconsider ways to protect their citizens from high prices and climate change. Rachel Kyte, dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University in the United States, said: “We are in a time of increasing tension around the world, with every possible excuse for distraction and delay. We must now put our hands around a new form of energy security that embraces everyone – a new kind of policy. “We are in a moment of accountability and the IPCC report is just putting an exclamation mark at the end of it.” Some governments may emphasize the role the IPCC envisions in techniques for removing carbon from the air, such as carbon sequestration and storage, used to neutralize fossil fuel power plants, and technologies such as “direct air capture” by which carbon is chemically extracted from the atmosphere. The IPCC in its broader report may warn that these techniques are unproven and may be prohibitively costly for rapid use on the required scale, but governments may impose more favorable language in the summary. Nikki Reisch, director of the energy and climate program at the Center for International Environmental Law, said governments need to be clear: “There is no room for more oil and gas. [Some businesses] they want to perpetuate the myth that we can continue to use fossil fuels. “But we need a fair transition away from fossil fuels, not repairs.” Anderson said this was a key dilemma. He warned that the report could “pull its fists, hidden behind billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.” [If that is what emerges], then the academic community will have relinquished its responsibilities and will have chosen realpolitik instead of real physics. The climate corresponds only to the second “. Stephen Cornelius, head of the WWF delegation, defended the IPCC process against allegations that governments could use it to mitigate scientific warnings. He said that as governments played a role in writing the abstracts, they could not avoid being held accountable for the warnings they contained. “The IPCC is a useful process,” he said. “It is burdensome, there is a lot of time between the outlines and the report, but… the reports have a political response and that is why they are taken seriously.”
