Human influence on the climate is “unequivocal” and “unprecedented”
The science is clear: human activities have caused significant changes across the atmosphere, ocean, and land at a scale that is largely unparalleled in Earth’s history. Since 1750, anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have continued to rise. Currently, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are higher than any time in the last 2 million years, and other greenhouse gases like methane are at concentrations higher than any time in the last 800,000 years. These gases have – at the fastest rate in at least the last 2000 years – driven a 1.1°C increase in global surface temperature (relative to 1850-1900). This has impacted global patterns of precipitation, glacial retreat, and sea level rise, for example.

The effects are felt now, and they are pervasive. Across every inhabited region of the world, human-induced climate change has already impacted the frequency and intensity of extreme events, including heatwaves, droughts, heavy precipitation and flooding. The chance of compound extreme events, where two hazards co-occur, has also increased.

The future climate
The report explores five scenarios (or shared socio-economic pathways, SSPs), varying GHG emissions from “very high” to “very low” levels. All scenarios show continued global surface temperature increase through at least 2050. Thus, historical GHG emissions have committed us to a certain level of warming. Because of this, some changes, such as ice loss and sea level rise, will be effectively irreversible for centuries or even millennia. However, changes in the climate system, particularly extremes, are expected to become more pronounced and increase in intensity and/or frequency with each increment of global warming – so each additional degree counts. A key finding is that while the Paris agreement’s 1.5°C warming goal is surpassed by mid-century in every SSP, the global surface temperature falls back below the aforementioned threshold by 2100 under the lowest emissions scenario.

What can we do about it?
There is a near-linear relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Therefore, the primary way to limit human-induced global warming is through reducing carbon dioxide emissions to net-zero, as well as restricting cumulative carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide removal technologies could play a role in this transition, and might even allow us to reach net negative emissions – though there are also risks involved (see our CDR blog post!). Other GHG emissions reductions will not only help to curb warming, but also reduce air pollution.

This report comes directly before the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties, set to take place in Glasgow from late October through mid-November. Though we are already locked into some changes in the climate system, we do still have the chance to limit further exacerbation of the climate crisis. However, this only occur with definitive, transformative – and immediate – action from governments, businesses, and society at large to support rapid and far-reaching transitions across sectors like energy, infrastructure, and finance. UN Secretary-General António Guterres highlights the urgency when he states: “If we combine forces now, we can avert climate catastrophe. But, as [the IPCC] report makes clear, there is no time for delay and no room for excuses. [We] count on Government leaders and all stakeholders to ensure COP26 is a success” [2].

The Summary for Policymakers of the Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report, along with additional information and materials, is available here. Explore the interactive atlas to see potential climate futures across the globe at different levels of warming.

References
[1] IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.

[2] “Secretary-General Calls Latest IPCC Climate Report ‘Code Red for Humanity’, Stressing ‘Irrefutable’ Evidence of Human Influence”. 9 August 2021. Access here.

The post “Code Red for Humanity”: Insights from Newest IPCC Report appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

And then, I cannot stop myself from diving into the topic. Rifling the internet for more information about this very newest report on climate change. At one point, I stumble upon another article: “Eat less meat: UN climate-change report calls for change to human diet”. This puts my feelings a bit to ease. Finally, I think. Finally, the IPCC gives a suggestion on how we all should behave if we want to save the Earth’s climate as we know it.

This is new. Before, there was hardly such thing as a direct call for action in the IPCC reports. As mentioned in our article on the World Conference for Science Journalists, the chairman of the IPCC did not want to answer directly to a person in the audience asking if a change in diet would help to reduce emissions. That was the moment when my jaw dropped, I couldn’t believe it.

Now, the new report on land and climate suggests that a change in diet is necessary. That means, all of us – unless not already vegetarian or vegan – have to rethink their daily life. The cards are on the table (actually not just since this IPCC report but much longer), science provides evidence after evidence that tipping points are likely to be reached. Then, there will probably be no way back to our current climate. For example, if permafrost soils thaw, they will not freeze in the next moment (or the coming century) just because we cut emissions. Dairy products should also be mentioned since they as well generate high amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.

Around 80 percent of the world’s arable land is used for livestock production. Meanwhile, 820 million people around the world suffer from malnourishment. More and more land is used for agricultural production – a huge amount of food is thrown away in the end. It is absurd.

Of course, it is not possible that all people don’t eat meat at all – some people rely on it since they live in environments where the soil is not favourable for crop production or similar. Yet, a reduction in our westernized meat consumption is definitely inevitable.

That the IPCC is now at least suggesting to reduce the global meat consumption may not lead to a drastic change by tomorrow. But, to me personally, it gives hope. Hope, that science may, in the end, convince people to understand the urgency of changing our lifestyle. More suggestions and drastic words are needed, of course. Even though science is supposed to be independent or neutral – we cannot afford to waste time anymore. There are solutions for tackling the problem of climate change such as reducing our meat consumption; we just have to do our part now. “We” includes states, policymakers, the economy, and individuals.

It has had an impact already: In Germany, discussions about meat consumption have been wild the past few months. Various ideas are debated: increasing the tax on meat, a tax on CO2 generation and others. This may be a good sign, maybe it made “click” for some politicians. Who knows? To say it with well-known words: We are all sitting in the same boat. And this boat is likely to get caught by a storm. Literally. Therefore, action is needed. Spread the word, speak to people who may not be aware of the problems we will have to face due to climate change – and point out some solutions. 

The post How the last IPCC report may change our diet appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

As a master’s student of natural science, I know of what I am speaking: A vast number of scientific papers is extremely hard to read (and therefore understand). Additionally, the reach of the publishing journals is limited – often, you need to pay high amounts of money just to access a paper. People with a good understanding of the subject and with the ability to communicate these papers are truly needed. In order to get insights into this business, I went to the 11th World Conference of Science Journalists (WCSJ) in Lausanne, in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. It took place in the L’Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), a research institute and university in Lausanne.

The WCSJ is an event by the World Federation of Science journalists and is held every two years. In 2017, it was in San Francisco, USA. The next conference will take place in Medellín, Colombia, as was announced at the end of the event in Lausanne. This notice made for loud cheering from the side of the Colombian people at the conference.

In total, 1200 people took part in this conference: journalists, scientists, members of the EU, chairpersons of international scientific associations such as the IPCC or IPBES, members of communication boards of universities all around the globe – and some (very few) students like me. The aim of this biannual conference is to bring together professionals and students in science journalism to exchange skills, ideas and thoughts. But also, to build networks and form collaboration on a global scale. During the conference, many science journalists reported about their way into science writing and the possibilities and challenges of this job. 

The spectrum of talks, panel discussions, workshops and presentations was broad. There were three big auditoriums, hosting one major event after the other with a variety of topics. “The new goldrush: Prospects and controversies in deep seabed mining”, “Fake-news in science: How to recognize and fight it” or “Biodiversity: Reporting a silent crisis” – there was something for everyone. Researchers and science journalist from all over the world came together, discussed possible solutions for different challenges. Not all speakers could attend the conference physically, which is why some of them were called in via Skype. During a talk about marine protection, a number of researchers took part in a panel discussion, some of them sitting in chairs at the beach on a small island in the Indian Ocean, their feet in the white sand, the sound of the waves in the background echoing in the big hall in Lausanne. One of the highlights of the conference was the talk of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chairman Hoesung Lee. The auditorium was jam-packed, everyone wanted to hear what he had to say. He spoke about the findings of the current report on 1.5°C warming. He especially pointed out the necessity of combining different fields of research: “We have a good understanding of the technological and economic feasibility, but the social dimensions leave room for more knowledge”, Hoesung says. “We need a change in behaviour. We need a different economy.” He also talks about the choices in private and daily life. Particularly, he emphasizes the need for better infrastructure in remote areas: “Public transportation in cities is often very good. But in the countryside, you often have no choice.” Yet, one aspect he is not talking about – even when asked from the audience – is a change in diet. Even though it is well known that the meat consumption is one of the main reasons for greenhouse gas emissions. “What food choices people make, is not our area.”

Another special feature of the conference were the field trips offered on various days. Every participant could sign up in advance for the field trip they were interested in. Those trips included, for example, a trip to the research station at Jungfraujoch at 3700 meters of altitude, where climatic research has been done for the last 100 years. As temperature measurements at the station suggest, that the annual mean temperature has risen by 1.8°C since 1933. “I remember, when I started my research here around 40 years ago, the glacier was so much bigger”, Bertrand Calpini says and lets his glance wander over the Eiger glacier, which spans under the research station. He is head of the Deputy Director of the Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology (MeteoSwiss) and Head of the Measurements and Data Department in MeteoSwiss.

The final speech of the conference was held by Bob Watson, chairmen of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) since 2017. With wild gestures and his loud voice, the 71-year-old scientist with the greying white beard calls the audience for action. In his speech – which was originally set for 40 minutes and shortly before Watson’s presentation was cut to 20 minutes – he urges everyone to do write about biodiversity loss and climate change, pointing out the absolute necessity to change humankind’s current lifestyle. “In 2060, we will be probably beyond 2°C of global warming, more likely are 3-3.5°C”, he says while walking on the stage. “That means that countries have to double and triple their efforts to maintain the climate below 2°C warming! This is necessary to secure biodiversity and the global climate!”

What I have taken home from this conference is that it is absolutely necessary to look at as many facets of science as possible. Only focussing on one topic, one direction, may give ideas for this very subject. Yet, in order to understand the bigger picture, and to be able to write about it in a comprehensible way, it is essential to illuminate it from every perspective possible. It’s not only political injustice – but it can also go in hand with environmental disasters caused by political decisions. It’s not only climate change – it’s as well the social impacts that go along with it.

The post A review on the World Conference for Science Journalists appeared first on Global Change Ecology.