Breaking News
Investing Pro 0
NEW! Get Actionable Insights with InvestingPro+ Try 7 Days Free

New UN climate report to tackle reining in emissions

Commodities Apr 01, 2022 12:11PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Penguins are seen on an iceberg as scientists investigate the impact of climate change on Antarctica's penguin colonies, on the northern side of the Antarctic peninsula, Antarctica January 15, 2022. Picture taken January 15, 2022. REUTERS/Nata
 
ORLY
+1.60%
Add to/Remove from Watchlist
Add to Watchlist
Add Position

Position added successfully to:

Please name your holdings portfolio
 

By Jake Spring

(Reuters) - The U.N. climate science panel publishes its final report in the current assessment cycle on Monday, and this time will focus on ways of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, although the consensual nature of the reports means it could steer away from the most dramatic warnings.

Hundreds of scientists will have endorsed the findings on climate change as fact. And like all reports by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Monday's will be released only after 195 governments have signed off not just on the findings – but also on how those findings are worded in the report's summary.

That hard-fought global consensus can buttress a report against climate deniers casting doubt on its contents. But the consensus also comes at a cost, scientists say.

Getting everyone to agree on the facts and forecasts means that more confident projections are approved, while less certain scenarios - even if potentially devastating - get downplayed.

"Climate scientists and physical scientists in general are inherently conservative," said climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe at Texas Tech University. "They tend to go with the least alarming, the least dramatic."

A 2012 study in the journal Global Environment Change dubbed this trend ESLD or "erring on the side of least drama".

The study notes that IPCC scientists in 2007 considered including emerging research predicting an average 3-6 metre (10-20 feet) rise in sea levels should the West Antarctic ice sheet disintegrate.

But because there hadn't been much time for scientists to scrutinize and retest the new results, that more extreme projection was left out of that year's report, and IPCC authors instead predicted a far more conservative 18-59 centimetre (7-23 inch) rise by 2100.

Coastal communities weren't warned of the full risks they faced until the next IPCC reports in 2013, and even more thoroughly in last year's, said Jessica O'Reilly (NASDAQ:ORLY), an anthropologist at Indiana University and co-author of the study.

Improvements in climate science since the first IPCC report in 1990 have made each assessment round more detailed and nuanced, highlighting possible climate impacts even if scientists aren't 100% sure they will come to pass.

On sea levels, last year's IPCC report said the world could see an average rise of nearly 2 metres by 2100, though that is uncertain.

"My colleagues appear to now believe that, if accurate statements about the science are also seen as dramatic, then that's just reality, and we shouldn't pull any punches,” said study co-author Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University.

GOVERNMENTS WEIGH IN

Because parts of the IPCC reports need government signoff, the reports are often referred to as political documents.

Some scientists worry that countries with interests in fossil fuels – the main driver of global warming – will seek to downplay climate impacts or dangers in the report's roughly 40-page summary. The summary is a key document given that most people will never read the thousands of pages in the full report.

"I have never liked the idea that politicians have a final say on the wording of the report," said Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University climate scientist. "That privilege has been abused by bad state actors."

During the closed-door negotiations over the previous IPCC report on adapting to a warmer world, released in February, oil-producing Russia and Saudi Arabia sought more emphasis on positive climate impacts.

For example, Russia wanted to highlight benefits to Arctic fishing from the irreversible loss of polar sea ice, according to summaries of the proceedings made public by the non-profit International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Most of Russia and Saudi Arabia's suggestions were not adopted.

Governments rarely seek to suppress scientific information, though, as that could invite even more scrutiny of a government's climate position, said past IPCC author Pete Smith of the University of Aberdeen in Scotland.

Instead, delegates will ask for nuanced word changes, Smith said. For example, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, Brazil, Argentina and Ecuador argued successfully in February to weaken language on the role of climate change in spurring violent conflict.

Even without any objections, having every country analyze every word and approve the summary line-by-line is "painful," Smith said in an email to Reuters.

"I don't have the attention span/patience for this!"

New UN climate report to tackle reining in emissions
 

Related Articles

Oil climbs ahead of OPEC+ talks on supply cut
Oil climbs ahead of OPEC+ talks on supply cut By Reuters - Oct 04, 2022 4

By Sonali Paul MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Oil prices inched up on Wednesday extending 3% gains in the previous session ahead of a meeting of OPEC+ producers to discuss a big output cut...

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
Comments (2)
Alan Rice
Alan Rice Apr 02, 2022 3:02AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Key Question: Do YOU care ??
Mike Nawrocki
Mike Nawrocki Apr 01, 2022 1:25PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
More political banter designed to squash opposing viewpoints with "scientific facts", right after politicians make sure it fits the agenda.
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email