Word, words, words. I'm so sick of words

Words matter and I like Liam Kavanagh's discussion of climate words. 

Kavanagh argues that if we say “1.5 is alive” many readers will think we mean “we’ve got a practical chance of meeting 1.5 °C with the political processes we have in place”. And that, of course, is nonsense.

The IPCC Synthesis report says explicitly that we need (para C.1)

“increased international cooperation including improved access to adequate financial resources, particularly for vulnerable regions, sectors and groups, and inclusive governance and coordinated policies".

Indeed we do but we shan't get it without profound political change.

So we should stop saying the comfortable positive things. If we must say that 1.5 is alive we MUST add that it can only stay alive if we move immediately to increased international cooperation on priorities and funding, and everything else. 

As XR says - Tell the truth.

Excessive optimism by the IPCC

The IPCC has been praised for the stark realism of its recent Synthesis Report[1]. And it’s true that the tone is bleaker and the language more forceful than in previous reports.

But overall I believe it’s far too optimistic. I don’t doubt the science. We do need “deep global GHG emissions reductions this decade” (paras A.4.3 and B.5.1) in order to have even a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C.

It’s the recommendations! They would be right for a world in which world leaders were good people. People who followed the evidence to find then implement solutions to the climate crisis.

That’s not the world we live in.

The climate emergency is a global crisis, well beyond the control of any one state. The IPCC rightly describes international cooperation as a “critical enabler” (para C.7.6, also para C.1). But you might as well ask Boris Johnson to unite with the EU or Vladimir Putin to respect human rights.

Over and over again progress at the UNFCCC COPs has been blocked by leaders who care more for short-term national advantage and the profits of oil companies than long-term global survival. In the UK, USA, Russia, China, Hungary, Italy, India – it would be tedious to go on – the last decade has the rise of nationalists who barely even claim to respect international law and democratic values. The willingness of countries to collaborate on anything except trade is markedly lower than it was when the UNFCCC process started.

And let’s look at money. We need, the IPCC says, “improved access to finance for low-emissions infrastructure and technologies, especially in developing countries (C.2.5)”.

In the real world the major nations have so far failed consistently to provide climate finance at the long-promised $100B per year. And they have yet to agree numbers or a mechanism to pay for the loss and damage they have caused.

There is just no chance that they will suddenly see the error of their ways and do what’s necessary.

So I just ask this. Shouldn’t the IPCC  be writing for the world we actually live in?

---

[1] IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report (2023)