The necessary weapon in fight for climate action
In the ongoing fight against climate crisis, the indispensable role of science has emerged as a beacon of hope and a guiding light for meaningful action. From unravelling the intricacies of Earth's climate system to devising innovative solutions, science remains at the core of effective climate action. At the forefront of scientific efforts is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose comprehensive assessments provide policymakers with the most up-to-date and rigorous scientific information on climate change. These assessments serve as a roadmap for global action, highlighting the urgent need for greenhouse gas emission reductions and adaptation measures. Prof Jim Skea, who was recently elected as the chair of the IPCC, underscored the urgency of immediate action while highlighting the scientific solutions available to combat the climate crisis. Renowned for his expertise in energy matters, Skea took the reins of the IPCC this year. He shared his insights in an exclusive interview. What can we expect from the IPCC this year? Not much, I am afraid. Our cycles typically span five to seven years, so our next major reports are due around 2027. Each cycle is a fresh start, allowing us to refine our approach and consolidate our findings. IPCC reports often sound alarm bells about climate change. Are you prophets of doom? No, that's not our intention. While it's crucial to convey the seriousness of climate risks, we also emphasise the potential for positive action. Humanity possesses the technology, policies and tools to address climate change effectively. Our recent reports focus on solutions alongside challenges, reflecting our belief in human agency. Critics claim governments water down IPCC reports. How do you ensure scientific integrity? IPCC reports undergo rigorous review by scientists and policymakers. Any changes must align with the underlying science. During these sessions, if we discuss a particular finding, phrase, or sentence, we ask the authors if it aligns with the underlying science. We do not approve anything unless the authors confirm that it aligns with the scientific research. This consensus-based approach ensures the credibility and accuracy of our findings, fostering trust between scientists and policymakers. Why did the IPCC participate in the sixth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly? Our involvement extends beyond climate to other environmental issues. The interconnectedness of biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and climate change necessitates a holistic approach to environmental stewardship. For instance, we have been engaging in discussions with the Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services as the biodiversity and climate crises are linked. We are also exploring how plastic pollution, a significant issue for Kenya, interacts with climate change action. Has the world surpassed 1.5°C warming? Not yet, but we are perilously close. While recent spikes may breach this threshold temporarily, the long-term trend remains concerning. Limiting warming to 1.5°C is critical as higher temperatures exacerbate climate risks significantly. Last year, however, according to some reports, crossed that threshold. And that’s because of the El Nino. Once we reach the end of that cycle (which lasts between three to five years), temperatures are likely to decrease. Why was the target of limiting global warming to 1.5C chosen? How was this target determined? Before the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015 at COP21, governments requested scientists, including those from the IPCC, to determine the difference in the global impacts of climate change at different levels of warming. Scientific assessments indicate that risks escalate substantially beyond 1.5°C of warming. Governments, informed by scientific evidence, adopted this target in the Paris Agreement to safeguard against catastrophic impacts. Have any regions breached 1.5°C? Yes, localised warming varies, with some regions experiencing temperatures surpassing 1.5°C. Land areas typically warm more rapidly than oceans, highlighting the unequal distribution of climate impacts. So, what would you say to the people who still deny that climate change is happening? Deniers are increasingly marginalised, reflecting the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. Multiple lines of evidence, from observational data to climate models, converge on the reality of human-induced warming. It's imperative to confront denialism with robust scientific evidence and unwavering resolve. In the fight against climate change, science remains our most potent weapon. By heeding scientific insights and embracing evidence-based solutions, we can forge a sustainable path forward for future generations.