2
IPCC assessment on climate change and international conventions
The IPCC has published five
comprehensive assessment reports reviewing the latest climate science, as well
as a number of special reports on particular topics. These reports are prepared
by teams of relevant researchers selected by the Bureau from government
nominations. Expert reviewers from a wide range of governments, IPCC observer
organizations and other organizations are invited at different stages to
comment on various aspects of the drafts.
The IPCC published its First
Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990, a
supplementary report in 1992, a Second Assessment Report (SAR) in 1995, a Third Assessment Report
(TAR) in 2001, a Fourth Assessment
Report (AR4) in 2007 and a Fifth
Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014. The IPCC is
currently preparing the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), which will be completed
in 2022.
Each assessment report is in three
volumes, corresponding to Working Groups I, II, and III. The bare phrase
"the IPCC report" is often used to mean the Working Group I report,
which covers the basic science of climate change.
Scope and preparation of the reports
The IPCC does not carry out research
nor does it monitor climate related data. Lead authors of IPCC reports assess
the available information about climate change based on published sources.
According to IPCC guidelines, authors should give priority to
peer-reviewed sources. Authors may refer to non-peer-reviewed sources (the
"grey literature"), provided that they are of sufficient quality. Examples
of non-peer-reviewed sources include model results, reports from government
agencies and non-governmental organizations, and industry journals. Each
subsequent IPCC report notes areas where the science has improved since the
previous report and also notes areas where further research is required.
There are generally three stages in the review process:
·
Expert review (6–8 weeks)
·
Government/expert review
·
Government review of:
·
Summaries for Policymakers
·
Overview Chapters
·
Synthesis Report
Review comments are in an open archive for at least five years.
There are several types of endorsement which documents receive:
·
Approval. Material has been subjected
to detailed, line by line discussion and agreement.
·
Working Group Summaries for
Policymakers are approved by their Working Groups.
·
Synthesis Report Summary for
Policymakers is approved by Panel.
·
Adoption. Endorsed section by section
(and not line by line).
·
Panel adopts Overview
Chapters of Methodology Reports.
·
Panel adopts IPCC
Synthesis Report.
·
Acceptance. Not been subject to line
by line discussion and agreement, but presents a comprehensive, objective, and
balanced view of the subject matter.
·
Working Groups accept their
reports.
·
Task Force Reports are accepted by
the Panel.
·
Working Group Summaries for
Policymakers are accepted by the Panel after group approval.
The Panel is responsible for the IPCC and its endorsement of
Reports allows it to ensure they meet IPCC standards.
There have been a range of commentaries on the IPCC's
procedures, examples of which are discussed later in the article (see
also IPCC Summary for Policymakers). Some of these comments have been
supportive, while others have been critical. Some commentators have
suggested changes to the IPCC's procedures.
Authors
Each chapter has a number of authors
who are responsible for writing and editing the material. A chapter typically
has two "coordinating lead authors", ten to fifteen "lead
authors", and a somewhat larger number of "contributing
authors". The coordinating lead authors are responsible for assembling the
contributions of the other authors, ensuring that they meet stylistic and
formatting requirements, and reporting to the Working Group chairs. Lead
authors are responsible for writing sections of chapters. Contributing authors
prepare text, graphs or data for inclusion by the lead authors.
Authors for the IPCC reports are
chosen from a list of researchers prepared by governments and participating
organisations, and by the Working Group/Task Force Bureaux, as well as other experts
known through their published work. The choice of authors aims for a range of
views, expertise and geographical representation, ensuring representation of
experts from developing and developed countries and countries with economies in
transition.
First assessment report
The IPCC First Assessment Report
(FAR) was completed in 1990, and served as the basis of the UNFCCC.
The executive summary of the WG I
Summary for Policymakers report says they are certain that emissions resulting
from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric
concentrations of the greenhouse gases,
resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface. They calculate with confidence that CO2 has
been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect. They predict
that under a "business as usual" (BAU) scenario, global mean
temperature will increase by about 0.3 °C per decade during the [21st]
century. They judge that global mean surface air temperature has increased by
0.3 to 0.6 °C over the last 100 years, broadly consistent with prediction
of climate models, but also of the same magnitude as natural climate
variability. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect is not
likely for a decade or more.
Supplementary report of 1992
The 1992 supplementary report was an
update, requested in the context of the negotiations on the UNFCCC at the Earth
Summit (United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
The major conclusion was that
research since 1990 did "not affect our fundamental understanding of the
science of the greenhouse effect and either confirm or do not justify
alteration of the major conclusions of the first IPCC scientific
assessment". It noted that transient (time-dependent) simulations, which
had been very preliminary in the FAR, were now improved, but did not include
aerosol or ozone changes.
Second assessment report
Climate Change 1995, the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR), was finished in 1996.
It is split into four parts:
·
A synthesis to help interpret UNFCCC
article 2.
·
The
Science of Climate Change (WG
I)
·
Impacts,
Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change (WG II)
·
Economic
and Social Dimensions of Climate Change (WG
III)
Each of the last three parts was completed by a separate Working
Group (WG), and each has a Summary for Policymakers (SPM) that represents a
consensus of national representatives. The SPM of the WG I report contains
headings:
1. Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase
2. Anthropogenic aerosols tend to produce negative radiative forcings
3. Climate has changed over the past century (air temperature
has increased by between 0.3 and 0.6 °C since the late 19th century; this
estimate has not significantly changed since the 1990 report).
4. The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
influence on global climate (considerable progress since the 1990 report in
distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic influences on climate, because
of: including aerosols; coupled models; pattern-based studies)
5. Climate is expected to continue to change in the future
(increasing realism of simulations increases confidence; important
uncertainties remain but are taken into account in the range of model
projections)
6. There are still many uncertainties (estimates of future emissions
and biogeochemical cycling; models; instrument data for model testing,
assessment of variability, and detection studies)
Third assessment report
The Third Assessment Report (TAR) was
completed in 2001 and consists of four reports, three of them from its Working
Groups:
·
Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
·
Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability
·
Working Group III: Mitigation
·
Synthesis Report
A number of the TAR's conclusions are given quantitative
estimates of how probable it is that they are correct, e.g., greater than 66%
probability of being correct. These are "Bayesian" probabilities, which are based on an expert
assessment of all the available evidence.
"Robust findings" of the TAR Synthesis Report include:
·
"Observations show Earth's
surface is warming. Globally, 1990s very likely warmest decade in instrumental record". Atmospheric
concentrations of anthropogenic (i.e., human-emitted) greenhouse
gases have increased substantially.
·
Since the mid-20th century, most of
the observed warming is "likely" (greater than 66% probability, based
on expert judgement) due to human activities.
·
Projections based on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios suggest warming over the 21st century at a more rapid rate
than that experienced for at least the last 10,000 years.
·
"Projected climate change will
have beneficial and adverse effects on both environmental and socio-economic
systems, but the larger the changes and the rate of change in climate, the more
the adverse effects predominate."
·
"Ecosystems and species are
vulnerable to climate change and other stresses (as illustrated by observed
impacts of recent regional temperature changes) and some will be irreversibly
damaged or lost."
·
"Greenhouse gas emission
reduction (mitigation) actions
would lessen the pressures on natural and human systems from climate
change."
·
"Adaptation [to the effects of climate change] has the
potential to reduce adverse effects of climate change and can often produce immediate ancillary benefits,
but will not prevent all damages." An example of adaptation to
climate change is building levees in
response to sea level rise.
Comments on the TAR
In 2001, 16 national science academies issued
a joint statement on climate change. The joint statement was made by
the Australian Academy of Science,
the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of Canada, the Caribbean Academy of Sciences, the Chinese
Academy of Sciences, the French Academy
of Sciences, the German Academy of
Natural Scientists Leopoldina, the Indian
National Science Academy, the Indonesian Academy of
Sciences, the Royal Irish Academy, Accademia
Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), the Academy of Sciences Malaysia, the Academy
Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
and the Royal Society(UK). The
statement, also published as an editorial in the journal Science, stated "we support the [TAR's] conclusion that it
is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average
global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8 °C
above 1990 levels by 2100". The TAR has also been endorsed by
the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic
Society, and European Geosciences
Union (refer to "Endorsements of
the IPCC").
In 2001, the US National Research Council (US NRC) produced a report that assessed Working Group I's
(WGI) contribution to the TAR. US NRC (2001) "generally agrees"
with the WGI assessment, and describes the full WGI report as an
"admirable summary of research activities in climate science".
IPCC author Richard Lindzen has
made a number of criticisms of the TAR.Among his criticisms, Lindzen has stated
that the WGI Summary for Policymakers (SPM) does not faithfully summarize the
full WGI report. For example, Lindzen states that the SPM understates the
uncertainty associated with climate models. John
Houghton, who was a co-chair of TAR WGI,has
responded to Lindzen's criticisms of the SPM. Houghton has stressed that
the SPM is agreed upon by delegates from many of the world's governments, and
that any changes to the SPM must be supported by scientific evidence.
IPCC author Kevin Trenberth has
also commented on the WGI SPM. Trenberth has stated that during the drafting of
the WGI SPM, some government delegations attempted to "blunt, and perhaps
obfuscate, the messages in the report". However, Trenberth concludes
that the SPM is a "reasonably balanced summary".
US NRC (2001) concluded that the WGI SPM and Technical
Summary are "consistent" with the full WGI report. US NRC
(2001) stated:
[...] the full [WGI] report is adequately summarized in the
Technical Summary. The full WGI report and its Technical Summary are not specifically
directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers reflects less emphasis on
communicating the basis for uncertainty and a stronger emphasis on areas of
major concern associated with human-induced climate change. This change in
emphasis appears to be the result of a summary process in which scientists work
with policy makers on the document. Written responses from U.S. coordinating
and lead scientific authors to the committee indicate, however, that (a) no
changes were made without the consent of the convening lead authors (this group
represents a fraction of the lead and contributing authors) and (b) most
changes that did occur lacked significant impact.
Fourth assessment report
The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
was published in 2007. Like previous assessment reports, it consists of
four reports:
·
Working Group I: The Physical Science
Basis
·
Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability
·
Working Group III: Mitigation
·
Synthesis Report
People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report, which took 6 years to produce. Contributors to AR4
included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing
authors, and more than 450 lead authors.
"Robust findings" of the Synthesis report include:
·
"Warming of the climate system
is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and
rising global average sea level".
·
Most of the global average warming
over the past 50 years is "very likely" (greater than 90%
probability, based on expert judgement) due to human activities.
·
"Impacts [of climate change]
will very likely increase due to increased frequencies and intensities of some
extreme weather events".
·
"Anthropogenic warming and sea
level rise would continue for centuries even if GHG emissions were to be
reduced sufficiently for GHG concentrations to stabilise, due to the time
scales associated with climate processes and
feedbacks". Stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations is discussed in climate
change mitigation.
·
"Some planned adaptation (of
human activities) is occurring now; more extensive adaptation is required to
reduce vulnerability to climate change".
·
"Unmitigated climate change
would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed
and human systems to adapt".
·
"Many impacts [of climate
change] can be reduced, delayed or avoided by mitigation".
Global warming projections from AR4 are shown below. The
projections apply to the end of the 21st century (2090–99), relative to
temperatures at the end of the 20th century (1980–99). Add 0.7 °C to
projections to make them relative to pre-industrial levels instead of
1980–99. Descriptions of the greenhouse gas emissions scenarios can be
found in Special Report on Emissions Scenarios.
|
AR4 global warming projections |
||
|
Emissions |
Best estimate |
"Likely" range |
|
B1 |
1.8 |
1.1 – 2.9 |
|
A1T |
2.4 |
1.4 – 3.8 |
|
B2 |
2.4 |
1.4 – 3.8 |
|
A1B |
2.8 |
1.7 – 4.4 |
|
A2 |
3.4 |
2.0 – 5.4 |
|
A1FI |
4.0 |
2.4 – 6.4 |
"Likely" means greater than 66% probability of being
correct, based on expert judgement.
Response to AR4
Several science academies have
referred to and/or reiterated some of the conclusions of AR4. These include:
·
Joint-statements made in
2007, 2008 and 2009 by the science academies of Brazil, China,
India, Mexico, South Africa and the G8 nations (the "G8+5").
·
Publications by the Australian Academy of Science.
·
A joint-statement made in 2007 by
the Network of African Science Academies.
·
A statement made in 2010 by the Inter
Academy Medical Panel This statement has been signed by 43 scientific
academies.
The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL, et al., 2009; 2010) has
carried out two reviews of AR4. These reviews are generally supportive of AR4's
conclusions. PBL (2010) make some recommendations to improve the IPCC
process. A literature assessment by the US National Research Council (US NRC,
2010) concludes:
Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human
activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already
affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems [emphasis in original text]. [...] This conclusion
is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work,
and is consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the U.S. Global
Change Research Program [...], the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
Fourth Assessment Report [...], and other assessments of the state of
scientific knowledge on climate change.
Some errors have been found in the IPCC AR4 Working Group II
report. Two errors include the melting of Himalayan glaciers (see later
section), and Dutch land area that is below sea
level.
Fifth assessment report
The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report
(AR5) was completed in 2014. AR5 followed the same general format as of
AR4, with three Working Group reports and a Synthesis report. The Working
Group I report (WG1) was published in September 2013.
Conclusions of AR5 are summarized below:
Working Group I
·
"Warming of the climate system
is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are
unprecedented over decades to millennia".
·
"Atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels
unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years".
·
Human influence on the climate system
is clear. It is extremely likely (95-100% probability) that human
influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.
Working Group II
·
"Increasing magnitudes of
[global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible
impacts"
·
"A first step towards adaptation
to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present
climate variability"
·
"The overall risks of climate
change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate
change"
Working Group III
·
Without new policies to mitigate
climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in
2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C,
relative to pre-industrial levels (median values;
the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).
·
The current trajectory of global
greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with limiting global warming to
below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as
part of the Cancún Agreements are broadly consistent with
cost-effective scenarios that give a "likely" chance (66-100%
probability) of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 3 °C, relative
to pre-industrial levels.
Representative Concentration Pathways
Projections in AR5 are based on "Representative
Concentration Pathways" (RCPs). The RCPs
are consistent with a wide range of possible changes in future anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions. Projected changes in global mean surface temperature
and sea level are given in the main RCP article.
Special
reports
In addition to climate assessment reports, the IPCC is
publishing Special Reports on specific topics. The preparation and approval
process for all IPCC Special Reports follows the same procedures as for IPCC
Assessment Reports. In the year 2011 two IPCC Special Report were finalized,
the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change
Mitigation(SRREN) and the Special Report on
Managing Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation (SREX). Both Special Reports were requested by governments.
Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)
The Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) is a report by the IPCC which was published
in 2000. The SRES contains "scenarios"
of future changes in emissions of greenhouse gases and sulfur
dioxide. One of the uses of the SRES scenarios
is to project future changes in climate, e.g., changes in global mean
temperature. The SRES scenarios were used in the IPCC's Third and Fourth
Assessment Reports.
The SRES scenarios are "baseline" (or
"reference") scenarios, which means that they do not take into
account any current or future measures to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
(e.g., the Kyoto Protocol to
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). SRES emissions projections are broadly comparable
in range to the baseline projections that have been developed by the scientific
community.
Comments on the SRES
There have been a number of comments on the SRES. Parson et
al. (2007) stated that the SRES represented "a substantial
advance from prior scenarios". At the same time, there have been
criticisms of the SRES. The most prominently publicized
criticism of SRES focused on the fact that all but one of the participating
models compared gross domestic product (GDP) across regions using market
exchange rates (MER), instead of the more
correct purchasing-power parity (PPP)
approach. This criticism is discussed in the main SRES article.
Special report on renewable energy sources and climate change
mitigation (SRREN)
This report assesses
existing literature on renewable energy commercialisation for the mitigation of climate change. It was
published in 2012 and covers the six most important renewable energy
technologies, as well as their integration into present and future energy
systems. It also takes into consideration the environmental and social
consequences associated with these technologies, the cost and strategies to
overcome technical as well as non-technical obstacles to their application and
diffusion. The full report in PDF form is found here
More than 130 authors from all over the world contributed to the
preparation of IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate
Change Mitigation (SRREN) on a voluntary basis – not to mention more than 100
scientists, who served as contributing authors.
Special Report on managing the risks of extreme events and
disasters to advance climate change adaptation (SREX)
The report was
published in 2012. It assesses the effect that climate change has on the threat
of natural disasters and how nations can better manage an expected change in
the frequency of occurrence and intensity of severe weather patterns. It aims
to become a resource for decision-makers to prepare more effectively for
managing the risks of these events. A potentially important area for
consideration is also the detection of trends in extreme events and the
attribution of these trends to human influence. The full report, 594 pages in
length, may be found here in PDF
form.
More than 80 authors, 19 review editors, and more than 100
contributing authors from all over the world contributed to the preparation of
SREX.
Methodology reports
Within IPCC the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program
develops methodologies to estimate emissions of greenhouse
gases. This
has been undertaken since 1991 by the IPCC WGI in close collaboration with
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and
the International Energy Agency. The
objectives of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program are:
·
to develop and refine an
internationally agreed methodology and software for the calculation and
reporting of national greenhouse gas emissions and removals; and
·
to encourage the widespread use of
this methodology by countries participating in the IPCC and by signatories of
the UNFCCC.
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories
The 1996 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Investories
provide the methodological basis for the estimation of national greenhouse
gas emissions inventories. Over
time these guidelines have been completed with good practice reports: Good
Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories and Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry.
The 1996 guidelines and the two good practice reports are to be
used by parties to the UNFCCC and to the Kyoto Protocol in their annual submissions of national greenhouse
gas inventories.
2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories is the latest version of these emission estimation
methodologies, including a large number of default emission
factors. Although the IPCC prepared this new version of the guidelines on request
of the parties to the UNFCCC, the methods have not yet been officially accepted
for use in national greenhouse gas emissions reporting under the UNFCCC and the
Kyoto Protocol.
Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15)
When the Paris
Agreement was adopted, the UNFCCC invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
to write a special report on "How can humanity prevent the global
temperature rise more than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial level". The
completed report, Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15), was released on October 8, 2018. Its full
title is "Global Warming of 1.5 °C, an IPCC special report on the impacts
of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global
greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global
response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts
to eradicate poverty".
The finished report summarizes the findings of scientists,
showing that maintaining a temperature rise to below 1.5 °C remains possible,
but only through "rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land,
urban and infrastructure..., and industrial systems". Meeting the Paris
target of 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) is possible but would require "deep
emissions reductions", "rapid", "far-reaching and
unprecedented changes in all aspects of society". In order to achieve the
1.5 °C target, CO2 emissions must decline by 45% (relative to 2010 levels) by
2030, reaching net zero by around 2050. Deep reductions in non-CO2 emissions
(such as nitrous oxide and methane) will also be required to limit warming to
1.5 °C. Under the pledges of the countries entering the Paris Accord, a sharp
rise of 3.1 to 3.7 °C is still expected to occur by 2100. Holding this rise to
1.5 °C avoids the worst effects of a rise by even 2 °C. However, a warming of
even 1.5 degrees will still result in large-scale drought, famine, heat stress,
species die-off, loss of entire ecosystems, and loss of habitable land,
throwing more than 100 Million into poverty. Effects will be most drastic in
arid regions including the Middle Eastand
the Sahel in Africa, where fresh
water will remain in some areas following a 1.5 °C rise in temperatures but are
expected to dry up completely if the rise reaches 2 °C.
Activities
The IPCC concentrates its activities on the tasks allotted to it
by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions
and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UNFCCC
process. While the preparation of the assessment reports is a major IPCC
function, it also supports other activities, such as the Data Distribution
Centre and the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Programme, required under the UNFCCC. This involves publishing
default emission factors, which
are factors used to derive emissions estimates based on the levels of fuel
consumption, industrial production and so on.
The IPCC also often answers inquiries from the UNFCCC Subsidiary
Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA).
Nobel
Peace Prize
December 2007, the IPCC was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize "for their efforts to build
up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay
the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such
change". The award is shared with Former U.S. Vice-President Al
Gore for his work on climate change and the
documentary An Inconvenient Truth.
Criticisms
There is widespread support for
the IPCC in the scientific community,
which is reflected in publications by other scientific bodies and experts.
However, criticisms of the IPCC have been made.
Since 2010 the IPCC has come under yet unparalleled public and
political scrutiny. The global IPCC consensus approach
has been challenged internally and externally with the 2009 Climatic
Research Unit email controversy ("Climategate")
an important (but not sole) threshold. It has been deemed an information
monopoly with results for both the quality and
the impact of the IPCC work as such.
Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers
A paragraph in the 2007 Working Group II report ("Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability"), chapter 10 included a projection that
Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035
Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding
faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present
rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and
perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its
total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by
the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).
This projection was not included in the final summary for
policymakers. The IPCC has since acknowledged that the date is incorrect, while
reaffirming that the conclusion in the final summary was robust. They expressed
regret for "the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in
this instance". The date of 2035 has been correctly quoted by the IPCC
from the WWF report, which has misquoted its own source, an ICSI report "Variations of Snow and Ice in the past
and at present on a Global and Regional Scale".
Rajendra
K. Pachauri responded in an interview
with Science.
Overstatement of effects
Former IPCC chairman Robert Watson said,
regarding the Himalayan glaciers estimation, "The mistakes all appear to
have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more
serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at
this trend in the errors and ask why it happened". Martin Parry, a
climate expert who had been co-chair of the IPCC working group II, said
that "What began with a single unfortunate error over Himalayan glaciers
has become a clamour without substance" and the IPCC had investigated the
other alleged mistakes, which were "generally unfounded and also marginal
to the assessment".
Emphasis of the "hockey stick" graph
The third assessment report (TAR)prominently featured a graph labeled
"Millennial Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction" based on
a 1999 paper by Michael E. Mann, Raymond
S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes (MBH99),
which has been referred to as the "hockey stick graph". This graph extended the similar graph in Figure
3.20 from the IPCC Second
Assessment Report of 1995, and differed from a
schematic in the first assessment report that
lacked temperature units, but appeared to depict larger global temperature
variations over the past 1000 years, and higher temperatures during the Medieval
Warm Period than the mid 20th century. The
schematic was not an actual plot of data, and was based on a diagram of
temperatures in central England, with temperatures increased on the basis of
documentary evidence of Medieval vineyards in England. Even with this increase, the maximum it showed for the
Medieval Warm Period did not reach temperatures recorded in central England in
2007. The MBH99 finding was supported by cited reconstructions by Jones
et al. 1998, Pollack, Huang & Shen
1998, Crowley & Lowery 2000 and Briffa 2000, using differing data and
methods. The Jones et al. and Briffa reconstructions were overlaid with the
MBH99 reconstruction in Figure 2.21 of the IPCC report.
These studies were widely presented as demonstrating that the
current warming period is exceptional in comparison to temperatures between
1000 and 1900, and the MBH99 based graph featured in publicity. Even at the draft
stage, this finding was disputed by contrarians: in May 2000 Fred
Singer's Science and Environmental
Policy Project held a press event on Capitol
Hill, Washington, D.C., featuring comments on the graph Wibjörn Karlén and
Singer argued against the graph at a United States Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing
on 18 July 2000. Contrarian John Lawrence Daly featured a modified version of the IPCC 1990
schematic, which he mis-identified as appearing in the IPCC 1995 report, and
argued that "Overturning its own previous view in the 1995 report, the
IPCC presented the 'Hockey Stick' as the new orthodoxy with hardly an apology
or explanation for the abrupt U-turn since its 1995 report".Criticism of
the MBH99 reconstruction in a review paper, which was quickly discredited in
the Soon and Baliunas controversy, was
picked up by the Bush administration, and a Senate speech by US Republican
senator James Inhofe alleged that
"manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the
American people". The data and methodology used to produce the
"hockey stick graph" was criticized in papers by Stephen
McIntyreand Ross McKitrick, and in turn the criticisms in these papers were
examined by other studies and comprehensively refuted by Wahl &
Ammann 2007, which showed errors in the
methods used by McIntyre and McKitrick.
On 23 June 2005, Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce wrote
joint letters with Ed Whitfield,
chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations demanding full records on climate research, as well
as personal information about their finances and careers, from Mann, Bradley
and Hughes. Sherwood Boehlert, chairman
of the House Science Committee, said
this was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" apparently
aimed at intimidating scientists, and at his request the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences arranged for
its National Research Council to
set up a special investigation. The National Research Council's report
agreed that there were some statistical failings, but these had little effect
on the graph, which was generally correct. In a 2006 letter to Nature, Mann, Bradley, and Hughes pointed out that their
original article had said that "more widespread high-resolution data are needed
before more confident conclusions can be reached" and that the
uncertainties were "the point of the article".
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 featured a graph showing 12
proxy based temperature reconstructions, including the three highlighted in the
2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR); Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 as before, Jones et al. 1998 and Briffa 2000 had both been calibrated
by newer studies. In addition, analysis of the Medieval Warm Periodcited reconstructions by Crowley & Lowery
2000 (as cited in the TAR) and Osborn
& Briffa 2006. Ten of these 14 reconstructions
covered 1,000 years or longer. Most reconstructions shared some data series,
particularly tree ring data, but newer reconstructions used additional data and
covered a wider area, using a variety of statistical methods. The section
discussed the divergence problem affecting
certain tree ring data.
Conservative nature of IPCC reports
Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to
be conservative by consistently
underestimating the pace and impacts of global warming, and report only
the "lowest common denominator" findings.
On 1 February 2007, the eve of the publication of IPCC's major
report on climate, a study was published suggesting that temperatures and sea
levels have been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed during the last
IPCC report in 2001. The study compared IPCC 2001 projections on
temperature and sea level change with observations. Over the six years studied,
the actual temperature rise was near the top end of the range given by IPCC's
2001 projection, and the actual sea level rise was above the top of the range
of the IPCC projection.
Another example of scientific research which suggests that
previous estimates by the IPCC, far from overstating dangers and risks, have
actually understated them is a study on projected rises in sea levels. When the
researchers' analysis was "applied to the possible scenarios outlined by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found
that in 2100 sea levels would be 0.5–1.4 m [50–140 cm] above 1990 levels. These
values are much greater than the 9–88 cm as projected by the IPCC itself
in its Third Assessment Report, published in 2001". This may have been
due, in part, to the expanding human understanding of climate.
Greg Holland from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who reviewed a multi-meter sea level rise study by Jim Hansen, noted “There is no doubt that the sea level rise,
within the IPCC, is a very conservative number, so the truth lies somewhere
between IPCC and Jim.”
In reporting criticism by some scientists that IPCC's
then-impending January 2007 report understates certain risks, particularly sea
level rises, an AP story quoted Stefan Rahmstorf,
professor of physics and oceanography at Potsdam University as saying "In
a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and
cautious and not overstate any climate change risk".
In his December 2006 book, Hell
and High Water: Global Warming, and in an interview on Fox
News on 31 January 2007, energy expert Joseph
Rommnoted that the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report is already out of date and
omits recent observations and factors contributing to global warming, such as
the release of greenhouse gases from thawing tundra.
Political influence on the IPCC has been documented by the
release of a memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration, and its effects on
the IPCC's leadership. The memo led to strong Bush administration lobbying,
evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert
Watson, a climate scientist, from the IPCC
chairmanship, and to have him replaced by Pachauri, who was seen at the time as
more mild-mannered and industry-friendly.
IPCC processes
Michael
Oppenheimer, a long-time participant in the IPCC
and coordinating lead author of the Fifth Assessment Report conceded in Science
Magazine's State of the Planet 2008–2009 some limitations of the IPCC consensus approach and
asks for concurring, smaller assessments of special problems instead of the
large scale approach as in the previous IPCC assessment reports. It has
become more important to provide a broader exploration of
uncertainties. Others see as well mixed blessings of the drive for
consensus within the IPCC process and ask to include dissenting or minority
positions or to improve statements about uncertainties.
The IPCC process on climate change and its efficiency and
success has been compared with dealings with other environmental challenges
(compare Ozone depletion and global warming). In case of the Ozone depletion, global regulation based on the Montreal
Protocol has been successful. In case of
Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol failed. The
Ozone case was used to assess the efficiency of the IPCC process. The lockstep
situation of the IPCC is having built a broad science consensus while states
and governments still follow different, if not opposing goals. The
underlying linear model of policy-making of the more knowledge we have,
the better the political response will be is being doubted.
According to Sheldon Ungar's comparison with global warming, the
actors in the ozone depletion case had a better understanding of scientific
ignorance and uncertainties. The ozone case communicated to lay persons
"with easy-to-understand bridging metaphors derived from the popular
culture" and related to "immediate risks
with everyday relevance", while the public opinion on climate
change sees no imminent danger. The
stepwise mitigation of the ozone layer challenge was based as well on
successfully reducing regional burden sharing conflicts. In case of the
IPCC conclusions and the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, varying regional
cost-benefit analysis and burden-sharing conflicts with regard to the
distribution of emission reductions remain an unsolved problem. In the UK,
a report for a House of Lords committee asked to urge the IPCC to involve
better assessments of costs and benefits of climate change, but the Stern
Review, ordered by the UK government, made a
stronger argument in favor to combat human-made climate change.
Outdatedness of reports
Since the IPCC does not carry out its own research, it operates
on the basis of scientific papers and independently documented results from
other scientific bodies, and its schedule for producing reports requires a
deadline for submissions prior to the report's final release. In principle,
this means that any significant new evidence or events that change our
understanding of climate science between this deadline and publication of an
IPCC report cannot be included. In an area of science where our scientific
understanding is rapidly changing, this has been raised as a serious
shortcoming in a body which is widely regarded as the ultimate authority on the
science. However, there has generally been a steady evolution of key
findings and levels of scientific confidence from one assessment report to the
next.
The submission deadlines for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
differed for the reports of each Working Group. Deadlines for the Working Group
I report were adjusted during the drafting and review process in order to
ensure that reviewers had access to unpublished material being cited by the
authors. The final deadline for cited publications was 24 July 2006. The
final WG I report was released on 30 April 2007 and the final AR4 Synthesis
Report was released on 17 November 2007.Rajendra Pachauri, the
IPCC chair, admitted at the launch of this report that since the IPCC began
work on it, scientists have recorded "much stronger trends in climate
change", like the unforeseen dramatic melting of polar ice in the summer
of 2007, and added, "that means you better start with intervention
much earlier".
Burden on participating scientists
Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so
without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their
home institutions. The process is labor-intensive, diverting time and resources
from participating scientists' research programs. Concerns have been
raised that the large uncompensated time commitment and disruption to their own
research may discourage qualified scientists from participating.
Lack of error correction after publication
In May 2010, Pachauri noted that the IPCC currently had no
process for responding to errors or flaws once it issued a report. The problem,
according to Pachauri, was that once a report was issued the panels of
scientists producing the reports were disbanded.
Proposed organizational overhaul
In February 2010, in response to controversies regarding claims
in the Fourth Assessment Report, five
climate scientists – all contributing or lead IPCC report authors – wrote in
the journal Nature calling
for changes to the IPCC. They suggested a range of new organizational options,
from tightening the selection of lead authors and contributors, to dumping it
in favor of a small permanent body, or even turning the whole climate science
assessment process into a moderated "living"
Wikipedia-IPCC. Other recommendations included that the panel employ a
full-time staff and remove government oversight from its processes to avoid
political interference.
Reframing of scientific research
The 2018 report What Lies Beneath by the Breakthrough
- National Centre for Climate Restoration, with
contributions from Kevin Anderson, James
Hansen, Michael E. Mann, Michael Oppenheimer, Naomi Oreskes, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eric
Rignot, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Kevin Trenberth,
and others, urges the IPCC, the wider UNFCCC negotiations, and national policy
makers to change their approach. The authors note, "We urgently require a
reframing of scientific research within an existential risk-management
framework."
Inter Academy
Council review
In March 2010, at the invitation of
the United Nations secretary-general and the chair of the IPCC, the InterAcademy
Council (IAC) was asked to review the IPCC's processes for developing its
reports. The IAC panel, chaired by Harold Tafler Shapiro, convened on 14 May 2010 and released its report on 1
September 2010.
The IAC found that, "The IPCC
assessment process has been successful overall". The panel, however, made
seven formal recommendations for improving the IPCC's assessment process,
including:
1. establish an executive committee;
2. elect an executive director whose term would only last for
one assessment;
3. encourage review editors to ensure that all reviewer
comments are adequately considered and genuine controversies are adequately
reflected in the assessment reports;
4. adopt a better process for responding to reviewer
comments;
5. working groups should use a qualitative level-of-understanding
scale in the Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary;
6. "Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood
scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only
when there is sufficient evidence"; and
7. implement a communications plan that emphasizes
transparency and establish guidelines for who can speak on behalf of the
organization.
The panel also advised that the IPCC
avoid appearing to advocate specific policies in response to its scientific
conclusions. Commenting on the IAC report, Nature News noted
that "The proposals were met with a largely favourable response from
climate researchers who are eager to move on after the media scandals and
credibility challenges that have rocked the United Nations body during the past
nine months".
Archiving
Papers and electronic files of certain working groups of the
IPCC, including reviews and comments on drafts of their Assessment Reports, are
archived at the Environmental Science and Public Policy Archives in the Harvard Library.
Endorsements
of the IPCC
Various scientific bodies have issued official statements
endorsing and concurring with the findings of the IPCC.
·
Joint science academies' statement of 2001.
"The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents
the consensus of the
international scientific community on
climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source
of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of
achieving this consensus".
·
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric
Sciences. "We concur with the climate science
assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ...
We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment..."
·
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. "CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate
science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a
discernible human influence on global climate."
·
European Geosciences Union.
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [...] is the main
representative of the global scientific community [...][The] IPCC third
assessment report [...] represents the state-of-the-art of climate science
supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast
majority of scientific researchers and investigations as documented by the
peer-reviewed scientific literature".
·
International Council for Science (ICSU). "...the IPCC 4th
Assessment Report represents the most
comprehensive international scientific assessment ever conducted. This
assessment reflects the current collective knowledge on the climate system, its
evolution to date, and its anticipated future development".
·
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA). "Internationally, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)... is the most senior and authoritative body
providing scientific advice to global policy makers". United States
National Research Council. "The IPCC
Third Assessment Report'] conclusion that most of
the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the
increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current
thinking of the scientific community on this issue".
·
Network of African Science Academies. "The IPCC should be congratulated for the
contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists
between energy, climate and sustainability".
·
Royal Meteorological Society, in response to the release of the Fourth Assessment
Report, referred to the IPCC as "The world's
best climate scientists".
·
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London. "The most
authoritative assessment of climate change in the near future is provided by
the Inter-Governmental Panel for Climate Change".
The original northern hemisphere hockey
stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range
in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of
the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013reconstruction.
The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to HadCRUT4 data from 1850 to 2013.
United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change
The United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is
an international environmental treaty adopted on 9 May 1992 and
opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro from
3 to 14 June 1992. It then entered into force on 21 March 1994, after a sufficient
number of countries had ratified it. The UNFCCC objective is to
"stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level
that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate system". The framework sets non binding limits on
greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement
mechanisms. Instead, the framework outlines how specific international treaties
(called "protocols" or "Agreements") may be negotiated to
specify further action towards the objective of the UNFCCC
Initially,
an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) produced the text of the
Framework Convention during its meeting in New York from 30 April to 9 May
1992. The UNFCCC was adopted on 9 May 1992, and opened for signature on 4 June
1992. The UNFCCC has 197 parties as of December 2015. The convention
enjoys broad legitimacy, largely due to its nearly universal membership.
The
parties to the convention have met annually from 1995 in Conferences of
the Parties (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change.
In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was concluded and established legally
binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions in the period 2008–2012. The 2010 United Nations Climate
Change Conference produced an agreement stating that future global warming
should be limited to below 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) relative to the
pre-industrial level. The Protocol was amended in 2012 to encompass the
period 2013–2020 in the Doha Amendment, which as of December 2015 had not
entered into force. In 2015 the Paris Agreement was adopted,
governing emission reductions from 2020 on through commitments of countries in
Nationally Determined Contributions, lowering the target to 1.5 °C. The Paris
Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016.
One
of the first tasks set by the UNFCCC was for signatory nations to
establish national greenhouse gas inventories of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions and removals, which were used to create the 1990
benchmark levels for accession of Annex I countries to the Kyoto Protocol and
for the commitment of those countries to GHG reductions. Updated inventories
must be submitted annually by Annex I countries.
"UNFCCC"
is also the name of the United Nations Secretariat charged with
supporting the operation of the Convention, with offices in Haus
Carstanjen, and the UN Campus (known as Langer Eugen) in Bonn,
Germany. From 2010 to 2016 the head of the secretariat was Christiana
Figueres. In July 2016, Patricia Espinosa succeeded Figueres. The
Secretariat, augmented through the parallel efforts of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aims to gain
consensus through meetings and the discussion of various strategies
Treaty
The
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was opened for
signature at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro (known by its popular
title, the Earth Summit). On 12 June 1992, 154 nations signed the UNFCCC,
which upon ratification committed signatories' governments to reduce
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases with the goal of
"preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with Earth's climate
system". This commitment would require substantial reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions (see the later section, "Stabilization of greenhouse
gas concentrations")
Article
3(1) of the Convention states that Parties should act to protect the
climate system on the basis of "common but differentiated
responsibilities", and that developed country Parties should "take
the lead" in addressing climate change. Under Article 4, all Parties make
general commitments to address climate change through, for example, climate
change mitigation and adapting to the eventual impacts of climate
change. Article 4(7) states:
The
extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their
commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by
developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to
financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account
that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the
first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.
The
Framework Convention specifies the aim of developed (Annex I) Parties
stabilizing their greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide and other
anthropogenic greenhouse gases not regulated under the Montreal Protocol)
at 1990 levels, by the year 2000.
Kyoto Protocol
After the signing of the UNFCCC treaty, Parties to
the UNFCCC have met at conferences ("Conferences of the Parties" –
COPs) to discuss how to achieve the treaty's aims. At the 1st Conference
of the Parties (COP-1), Parties decided that the aim of Annex I Parties
stabilizing their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 was "not
adequate", and further discussions at later conferences led to
the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol sets emissions targets for
developed countries which are binding under international law.
The
Kyoto Protocol has had two commitment periods, the first of which lasted from
2008-2012. The second one runs from 2013-2020 and is based on the Doha
Amendment to the Protocol, which has not entered into force.
The
US has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, while Canada denounced it in 2012. The
Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by all the other Annex I Parties.
All
Annex I Parties, excluding the US, have participated in the 1st Kyoto
commitment period. 37 Annex I countries and the EU have agreed to second-round Kyoto
targets. These countries are Australia, all members of the European Union,
Belarus, Croatia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Switzerland, and
Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have stated that they may
withdraw from the Protocol or not put into legal force the Amendment with
second round targets. Japan, New Zealand, and Russia have participated in
Kyoto's first-round but have not taken on new targets in the second commitment
period. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada
(which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the United States.
Paris Agreement
In 2011, parties adopted the "Durban Platform
for Enhanced Action". As part of the Durban Platform, parties have
agreed to "develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed
outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all
Parties". At Durban and Doha, parties noted "with
grave concern" that current efforts to hold global warming to below 2 or
1.5 °C relative to the pre-industrial level appear inadequate.
In
2015, all (then) 196 parties to the convention came together for the UN
Climate Change Conference in Paris 30 November - 12 December and adopted
by consensus the Paris Agreement, aimed at limiting global warming to less than
two degrees Celsius, and pursue efforts to limit the rise to 1.5 degrees
Celsius. The Paris Agreement entered into force on November 4,
2016.
Intended Nationally Determined Contributions
At the 19th session of the Conference of the
Parties in Warsaw in 2013, the UNFCCC created a mechanism
for Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to be
submitted in the run up to the 21st session of the Conference of the
Parties in Paris (COP21) in 2015. Countries were given freedom and
flexibility to ensure these climate change mitigation and adaptation plans were
nationally appropriate; this flexibility, especially regarding the types
of actions to be undertook, allowed for developing countries to tailor their
plans to their specific adaptation and mitigation needs, as well as towards
other needs.
In the aftermath of COP21, these INDCs became
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) when a country ratified the Paris
Agreement, unless a new NDC was submitted to the UNFCCC at the same
time. The 22nd session of the Conference of the Parties (COP22)
in Marrakesh focused on these Nationally Determined Contributions and their
implementation, after the Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November
2016.
The Climate
and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) created a guide for NDC
implementation, for the use of decision makers in Less Developed Countries. In
this guide, CDKN identified a series of common challenges countries face in NDC
implementation, including how to:
·
build awareness of the need for, and benefits of,
action among stakeholders, including key government ministries
·
mainstream and integrate climate change into
national planning and development processes
·
strengthen the links between subnational and
national government plans on climate change
·
build capacity to analyse, develop and implement
climate policy
·
establish a mandate for coordinating actions around
NDCs and driving their implementation
·
address resource constraints for developing and
implementing climate change policy.
Other decisions
In
addition to the Kyoto Protocol (and its amendment) and the Paris Agreement,
parties to the Convention have agreed to further commitments during UNFCCC
Conferences of the Parties. These include the Bali Action
Plan (2007), the Copenhagen Accord (2009), the Cancún
agreements(2010), and the Durban Platform for Enhanced
Action (2012).
Bali
Action Plan
As
part of the Bali Action Plan, adopted in 2007, all developed country Parties
have agreed to "quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives,
while ensuring the comparability of efforts among them, taking into account
differences in their national circumstances." Developing country
Parties agreed to "[nationally] appropriate mitigation actions [NAMAs]
context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing
and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable
manner." 42 developed countries have submitted mitigation targets to
the UNFCCC secretariat, as have 57 developing countries and
the African Group (a group of countries within the UN).
Copenhagen
Accord and Cancún agreements
As
part of the 2009 Copenhagen negotiations, a number of countries produced
the Copenhagen Accord. The Accord states that global warming should
be limited to below 2.0 °C (3.6 °F). This may be strengthened in
2015 with a target to limit warming to below 1.5 °C. The Accord does
not specify what the baseline is for these temperature targets (e.g., relative
to pre-industrial or 1990 temperatures). According to the UNFCCC, these targets
are relative to pre-industrial temperatures.
114
countries agreed to the Accord. The UNFCCC secretariat notes that
"Some Parties [...] stated in their communications to the secretariat
specific understandings on the nature of the Accord and related matters, based
on which they have agreed to [the Accord]." The Accord was not formally
adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Instead, the COP "took note of
the Copenhagen Accord."
As
part of the Accord, 17 developed country Parties and the EU-27 have submitted
mitigation targets, as have 45 developing country Parties. Some developing
country Parties have noted the need for international support in their plans.
As
part of the Cancún agreements, developed and developing countries have
submitted mitigation plans to the UNFCCC. These plans are compiled with
those made as part of the Bali Action Plan.
Developing
countries
At
Berlin, Cancún, and Durban, the development needs of developing
country parties were reiterated. For example, the Durban Platform reaffirms
that:
[...]
social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and
overriding priorities of developing country Parties, and that a low-emission
development strategy is central to sustainable development, and that the share
of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their
social and development needs
Interpreting Article 2
The
ultimate objective of the Framework Convention is to prevent
"dangerous" anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) interference of the
climate system. As is stated in Article 2 of the Convention, this requires
that GHG concentrations are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can
adapt naturally to climate change, food production is not threatened,
and economic development can proceed in a sustainable fashion.
To stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations, global
anthropogenic GHG emissions would need to peak then decline (see climate
change mitigation). Lower stabilization levels would require emissions to peak
and decline earlier compared to higher stabilization levels. The graph
above shows projected changes in annual global GHG emissions (measured in CO2-equivalents)
for various stabilization scenarios. The other two graphs show the associated
changes in atmospheric GHG concentrations (in CO2-equivalents) and
global mean temperature for these scenarios. Lower stabilization levels are
associated with lower magnitudes of global warming compared to higher
stabilization levels.
There is uncertainty over how GHG concentrations
and global temperatures will change in response to anthropogenic emissions
(see climate change feedback and climate sensitivity). The
graph opposite shows global temperature changes in the year 2100 for a range of
emission scenarios, including uncertainty estimates.
Dangerous
anthropogenic interference
There are a range of views over what level of
climate change is dangerous. Scientific analysis can provide information on the
risks of climate hange, but deciding which risks are dangerous requires value
judgements.
The
global warming that has already occurred poses a risk to some human and natural
systems (e.g., coral reefs). Higher magnitudes of global warming will
generally increase the risk of negative impacts. According to Field et
al. (2014), climate change risks are "considerable"
with 1 to 2 °C of global warming, relative to pre-industrial levels.
4 °C warming would lead to significantly increased risks, with potential
impacts including widespread loss of biodiversity and reduced global
and regional food security.
Climate
change policies may lead to costs that are relevant to Article 2. For
example, more stringent policies to control GHG emissions may reduce the risk
of more severe climate change, but may also be more expensive to implement.
Projections
There is considerable uncertainty over future
changes in anthropogenic GHG emissions, atmospheric GHG concentrations, and
associated climate change. Without mitigation policies, increased energy
demand and extensive use of fossil fuels could lead to global warming (in
2100) of 3.7 to 4.8 °C relative to pre-industrial levels (2.5 to
7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).
To
have a likely chance of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 2 °C,
GHG concentrations would need to be limited to around 450 ppm CO2-eq.The
current trajectory of global emissions does not appear to be consistent with
limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C.
Precautionary principle
In decision making, the precautionary
principle is considered when possibly dangerous, irreversible, or
catastrophic events are identified, but scientific evaluation of the potential
damage is not sufficiently certain (Toth et al., 2001, pp. 655–656). The
precautionary principle implies an emphasis on the need to prevent such adverse
effects.
Uncertainty is associated with each link of the
causal chain of climate change. For example, future GHG emissions are
uncertain, as are climate change damages. However, following the precautionary
principle, uncertainty is not a reason for inaction, and this is acknowledged
in Article 3.3 of the UNFCCC.
Parties
As of 2015, the UNFCCC has 197 parties including
all United Nations member states, United Nations General Assembly
observer State of Palestine, UN non-member states Niue and
the Cook Islands and the supranational union European
Union. The Holy See is not a member state, but is an observer.
Classification of Parties and their commitments
Parties
to the UNFCCC are classified as:
·
Annex I: There are 43 Parties to the UNFCCC listed in Annex I of the
Convention, including the European Union. These Parties are
classified as industrialized (developed) countries and
"economies in transition" (EITs). The 14 EITs are the former
centrally-planned (Soviet) economies of Russia and Eastern Europe.
·
Annex II: Of the Parties listed in Annex I of the Convention, 24 are also listed
in Annex II of the Convention, including the European Union. These Parties
are made up of members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD). Annex II Parties are required to provide financial and
technical support to the EITs and developing countries to assist them
in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions (climate change
mitigation) and manage the impacts of climate change (climate change
adaptation).
·
Annex B: Parties listed in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol are Annex I Parties
with first- or second-round Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions targets
(see Kyoto Protocol for details). The first-round targets apply over
the years 2008–2012. As part of the 2012 Doha climate change talks, an
amendment to Annex B was agreed upon containing with a list of Annex I Parties
who have second-round Kyoto targets, which apply from 2013–2020. The
amendments have not entered into force.
·
Least-developed
countries (LDCs): 47 Parties are LDCs, and are given
special status under the treaty in view of their limited capacity to adapt to
the effects of climate change.
·
Non-Annex I: Parties to the UNFCCC not listed in Annex I of the Convention are
mostly low-income developing countries. Developing countries may
volunteer to become Annex I countries when they are sufficiently developed.
List of parties
Annex I countries
There
are 43 Annex I Parties including the European Union. These countries
are classified as industrialized countries and economies in transition. Of
these, 24 are Annex II Parties, including the European Union, and 14
are Economies in Transition
Conferences
of the Parties
The United Nations Climate Change Conference are
yearly conferences held in the framework of the UNFCCC. They serve as the
formal meeting of the UNFCCC Parties (Conferences of the Parties) (COP)
to assess progress in dealing with climate change, and beginning in the
mid-1990s, to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol to establish legally
binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions. From 2005 the Conferences have also served as the Meetings
of Parties of the Kyoto Protocol (CMP). Also parties to the Convention that are
not parties to the Protocol can participate in Protocol-related meetings as
observers. The first conference (COP1) was held in 1995 in Berlin. The 3rd
conference (COP3) was held in Kyoto and resulted in the Kyoto protocol, which
was amended during the 2012 Doha Conference (COP18, CMP 8).
The COP21 (CMP11)) conference was held in Paris and
resulted in adoption of the Paris Agreement. Negotiations for the Paris
Agreement took place during COP22 in Marrakech, Morocco. The twenty-third
COP ("COP23") was led by Fiji and took place
in Bonn, Germany.
Subsidiary
bodies
A subsidiary body is a committee that assists the
Conference of the Parties. Subsidiary bodies include:
·
Permanents:
·
The Subsidiary Body of Scientific and Technological
Advice (SBSTA) is established by Article 9 of the Convention to provide
the Conference of the Parties and, as appropriate, its other subsidiary bodies
with timely information and advice on scientific and technological matters
relating to the Convention. It serves as a link between information and
assessments provided by expert sources (such as the IPCC) and the COP,
which focuses on setting policy.
·
The Subsidiary Body of
Implementation (SBI) is established by Article 10 of the Convention to
assist the Conference of the Parties in the assessment and review of the
effective implementation of the Convention. It makes recommendations on policy
and implementation issues to the COP and, if requested, to other bodies.
·
Temporary:
·
Ad hoc Group on Article 13 (AG13), active from 1995
to 1998;
·
Ad hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (AGBM), active
from 1995 to 1997;
·
Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for
Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), established in 2005 by
the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol to consider further commitments of
industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol for the period beyond 2012;
it concluded its work in 2012 when the CMP adopted the Doha Amendment;
·
Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative
Action (AWG-LCA), established in Bali in 2007 to conduct negotiations on a
strengthened international deal on climate change;
·
Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for
Enhanced Action(ADP), established at COP 17 in Durban in 2011
"to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with
legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties." The ADP
concluded its work in Paris on 5 December 2015.
Secretariat
The work under the UNFCCC is facilitated by a
secretariat in Bonn, Germany. The secretariat is established under Article
8 of the Convention. It is headed by the Executive Secretary. The current
Executive Secretary, Patricia Espinosa, was appointed on 18 May 2016 by
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and took office on 18
July 2016. She succeeded Christiana Figueres who held the office
since 2010. Former Executive Secretaries have been Yvo de
Boer (2006-2010), Joke Waller-Hunter (2002-2005)
and Michael Zammit Cutajar (1995-2002).
Action
for Climate Empowerment (ACE)
Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) is a term
adopted by the UNFCCC in 2015 to have a better name for this topic than
"Article 6". It refers to Article 6 of the Convention's original text
(1992), focusing on six priority areas: education, training, public awareness,
public participation, public access to information, and international
cooperation on these issues. The implementation of all six areas has been
identified as the pivotal factor for everyone to understand and participate in
solving the complex challenges presented by climate change. ACE calls on
governments to develop and implement educational and public awareness
programmes, train scientific, technical and managerial personnel, foster access
to information, and promote public participation in addressing climate change
and its effects. It also urges countries to cooperate in this process, by
exchanging good practices and lessons learned, and strengthening national
institutions. This wide scope of activities is guided by specific objectives
that, together, are seen as crucial for effectively implementing climate
adaptation and mitigation actions, and for achieving the ultimate objective of
the UNFCCC.
Commentaries
and analysis
Criticisms of the UNFCCC Process
The
overall umbrella and processes of the UNFCCC and the adopted Kyoto Protocol
have been criticized by some as not having achieved its stated goals of
reducing the emission of carbon dioxide (the primary culprit blamed
for rising global temperatures of the 21st century). At a speech given at
his alma mater, Todd Stern — the US Climate Change envoy — has
expressed the challenges with the UNFCCC process as follows, "Climate
change is not a conventional environmental issue...It implicates virtually
every aspect of a state's economy, so it makes countries nervous about growth
and development. This is an economic issue every bit as it is an environmental
one." He went on to explain that, the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change is a multilateral body concerned with climate change and can
be an inefficient system for enacting international policy. Because the
framework system includes over 190 countries and because negotiations are
governed by consensus, small groups of countries can often block progress.
The
failure to achieve meaningful progress and reach effective-CO2 reducing-policy
treaties among the parties over the past eighteen years have driven some
countries like the United States to never ratify the UNFCCC's largest body of
work — the Kyoto Protocol, in large part because the treaty didn't cover
developing countries who now include the largest CO2 emitters. However, this
fails to consider the historical responsibility for climate change since
industrialisation, which is a contentious issue in the talks, and the
responsibility of emissions from consumption and importation of goods. It
has also led Canada to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol out of a desire to not
force its citizens to pay penalties that would result in wealth transfers out
of Canada. Canada formally withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011. Both
the US and Canada are looking at Voluntary Emissions
Reduction schemes that they can implement internally to curb carbon
dioxide emissions outside the Kyoto Protocol.
The
perceived lack of progress has also led some countries to seek and focus on
alternative high-value activities like the creation of the Climate and
Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants which seeks
to regulate short-lived pollutants such as methane, black
carbon and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) which together are believed to
account for up to 1/3 of current global warming but whose regulation is not as
fraught with wide economic impacts and opposition.
In
2010, Japan stated that it will not sign up to a second Kyoto term, because it
would impose restrictions on it not faced by its main economic competitors,
China, India and Indonesia. A similar indication was given by the Prime
Minister of New Zealand in November 2012. At the 2012 conference, last
minute objections at the conference by Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan
were ignored by the governing officials, and they have indicated that
they will likely withdraw or not ratify the treaty. These defections place
additional pressures on the UNFCCC process that is seen by some as cumbersome and
expensive: in the UK alone the climate change department has taken over 3,000
flights in two years at a cost of over ₤1,300,000 (British Pounds).
Before
the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, National
Geographic Magazine added criticism, writing: "Since 1992, when the
world's nations agreed at Rio de Janeiro to avoid 'dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system,' they've met 20 times without moving the
needle on carbon emissions. In that interval we've added almost as much carbon
to the atmosphere as we did in the previous century."
Benchmarking
Benchmarking is the setting of a policy target
based on some frame of reference. An example of benchmarking is the
UNFCCC's original target of Annex I Parties limiting their greenhouse gas
emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Although the target applies equally to all
Annex I Parties, the economic costs of meeting the target would likely vary
between Parties. For example, countries with initially high levels
of energy efficiency might find it more costly to meet the target than
countries with lower levels of energy efficiency. From this perspective, the
UNFCCC target could be viewed as inequitable, i.e., unfair.
Benchmarking
has also been discussed in relation to the first-round emissions targets
specified in the Kyoto Protocol
No comments:
Post a Comment