Today, I sat in on a plenary session organized by the SBSTA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) discussing the latest (6th) assessment report – the AR6 Working Group on Physical Science. Valérie Masson-Delmotte, the Working Group I co-chair, presented some highlights from this very technical report. This session was attended by Parties (government appointees who serve as negotiators) and the observers from civil society. My colleague, Hilde Binford, and I teach a climate science and negotiations course and use these IPCC reports as key resources, so we are quite familiar with the methodology and content. However, many in the audience probably have not waded through all of the technical details. I find the questions from the audience, especially the negotiators, interesting and believe that they illustrate the very different lenses used by scientists and policymakers when looking at such information.
It has been clear to me for some time now, and reinforced in today’s session, that most people
do not understand how scientists deal with uncertainty (data gaps or what we don’t fully understand in complex systems). There is also confusion as to why climate models can be improved over time as new data is gathered and as scientists gain a better understanding of interactions of multiple variables, etc. I firmly believe that we, as scientists and educators, have a responsibility to help translate or explain this detailed information to various audiences both at the COP and back at home.
Some of the negotiators raised questions (or objections) that were politically motivated, rather than out of a lack of understanding. For example, one particular representative from India was essentially asking for the highest risk scenario to be removed from the report claiming that *some* impacts are unlikely “doomsday scenarios”. This negotiator added that “COPs are supposed to deliver messages of hope and optimism” and the scientists who wrote the IPCC report were not doing that. (It was difficult at that moment for me not to ask what policymakers have done to increase hope and optimism since 1992 when the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was originally established.) The Working Group co-chair reminded the audience about the charge to the IPCC from the Parties and about the importance of using the same five emission scenarios across all working groups to determine future possibilities of climate change impacts and risk. Understanding risk and the associated probabilities (e.g. high or low risk) is essential for making sound policy decisions, for the re-insurance industry, knowing were to make effective investments in disaster risk reduction, etc.
Think about the “cone” of probability of where a hurricane that forms in the Atlantic might make landfall along the U.S. coastline. Early on, that cone is wide, as there is a lot of uncertainty about the track a storm might take or how strong the hurricane might get. With increased data and as the hurricane moves closer to the coastline, scientists are able to increase the accuracy of the model or decrease the uncertainty in predicting the behavior of the storm and the location of landfall. Early predictions alert people to the probability of danger, giving them time to prepare (evacuate, board up a dwelling, stock up on supplies, etc.). If forecasters waited until they had 100% certainty of the landfall site, it would be too late for people to reduce their risk of danger, damage to their property, or being left without food and water for an extended period of time. There are, of course, many analogies in modeling future climates.
Much thought goes into the IPCC reports in terms of how to communicate both spatial and temporal uncertainty and risk. So, what would be the advantage of eliminating the low probability/high emissions scenario? I can’t speak for certain as to the motives of that negotiator, but if the impacts or risk in the report don’t look so bad, or if the serious problems look like they may not take hold for some time far into the future, is there not then a reason to delay the shift away from fossil fuels? Policy makers must consider many factors unique to their country, but scientists must maintain scientific and reporting integrity.
As one colleague that I was talking with afterwards put it, the chances of crashing a car (or plane) are low, but we still wear our seatbelts. The chances of serious climate impacts are not low, so we really should be taking action to both mitigate the problem and adapt to the changes that are already locked in for our future.
I learned later that this same negotiator has been criticizing the work of the IPCC for some time. And I was also reminded of a recent news report that aired before I left for Glasgow in which a number of high-level officials from India indicated that they plan to use coal for the foreseeable future as that country strives to improve its socio-economic status. India currently relies on coal for 70% of its power.
~~
Many researchers I have talked to this week are attending their first COP and feeling a) overwhelmed by all that happens at the conference (that is typical) and b) questioning the significance of their role here. This is my twelfth COP, so I reflected on this a bit today. Attending these conferences is a privilege that most people in the world never get to experience. My voice at “the table” may seem insignificant, but I am here, and I have a voice. So many people around the world – already impacted by climate change in severe ways – do not. I am exposed to the process and details of international negotiations. I am able to gain both a great deal of knowledge from global experts and new perspectives from talking to people who come from very different cultures and life circumstances than I do.
With this privilege comes responsibility. One of our responsibilities is to seriously consider what we each do with this information when we go back home:
- Do we share it with the public, with local and regional decision makers, with our colleagues and institutions? If so, what is the best way to do so?
- How do we inform relevant people of the data gaps that would better inform policy at the local, national and international levels and advocate for research funding to support the needed work?
- How do we put all that science (from IPCC reports or regional data) to action to address this global challenge? How do we put the knowledge gained to positive action?
I know that my attendance at these United Nation events has increased my credibility back home, and, as such, I have been asked over the years to provide input for policy development especially related to adaptation, risk reduction, and capacity building at the local and state levels. I am asked by a wide range of stakeholder groups to give talks about the status of climate change and climate policy or to write opinion pieces for the local papers. The knowledge gained has allowed me to redesign what and how I co-teach a course in climate science and negotiations. And I know how many former students who have taken that course and then attended one of the COPs on Moravian’s credentials have ended up having their career paths dramatically altered by the experience or a chance meeting with someone on this international stage.
And that is far from insignificant.
