Q&A: Henrik Carlsen and Richard Klein on the IPCC Synthesis Report

On Sunday, 2 November, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Synthesis Report, which distills and integrates the findings of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, released in three parts over the past 13 months, as well as IPCC Special Reports on disasters and extreme weather events, and on renewable energy. It is, in the IPCC’s words, “the most comprehensive assessment of climate change ever undertaken”.

As part of the IPCC Synthesis Report release in Sweden, SEI Senior Research Fellow Richard Klein, a coordinating lead author in IPCC Working Group II, and Senior Research Fellow Henrik Carlsen, an expert in adaptation and decision-making under uncertainty, answered questions from the public in an online “climate chat” (in Swedish). Below, they answer some additional questions.

Q: What is the significance of this Synthesis Report?
RK: The IPCC was set up in 1988 to inform policy-makers and its first report in 1990 (as well as its 1992 supplement) directly informed the negotiations that led to the adoption of the UNFCCC. The second report in 1995 informed the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol and also subsequent reports have informed the UNFCCC process. However, over time the audience of the IPCC broadened to national and sectoral policy-makers, business, civil society and the general public. This also meant the reports became bigger and more difficult to digest. The synthesis report is an effort to target again directly those involved in national and international climate policy. Its scientific value is fairly limited (as it doesn’t present anything new), but its policy value is higher than that of the five summaries for policymakers combined. An example of this added value is Figure SPM.10, which combines, in one diagram, risks from climate change, cumulative CO2 emissions, and emission scenarios.

Q: How would you summarize the core message of this Synthesis Report? That it’s not too late to act, but need to act now?
RK: Yes, you put it well. Another important message is that serious climate action would require leaving many fossil fuel reserves undeveloped and that fossil fuel use would need to be phased out completely by 2100. I think the wording of this message is unfortunate, however, as it might create the impression that we still have plenty of time to act. It leaves out two issues: that it matters how much (or how little) fossil fuels are burnt between now and 2100, and that it takes a long time to transform the energy system completely in every part of the world.

Q: In Sweden, we have a new government with a strong environmental commitment. What messages should they take from this report?
HC: It is important to remember that IPCC reports are, in general, rather conservative and not alarmist. With that in mind, there is plenty of support in this report for a more proactive agenda on climate change. I see four key messages.

First, as Rajendra Pachauri stressed, we must look at both the path of action and the path of inaction. The cost of action is lower, and it is also more cost-effective to act now rather than later. This message should suit the new government.

Second, the report highlights the benefits of international cooperation for both mitigation and adaptation. Sweden is already active in international mitigation efforts, but it could step up its activities with regard to international cooperation on adaptation. A more international perspective on adaptation could be a valuable addition to a proactive and progressive Swedish foreign policy.

Third (and linked to foreign policy), in the Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC for the first time links climate change to violent conflicts. The report states the obvious, that violent conflict increases vulnerability to climate change, but it also says that climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflict by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts, such as poverty and economic shocks. Sweden’s long tradition in peace building could therefore be linked to the challenges of a changing climate.

Finally, the report states that there are multiple mitigation pathways that are likely to limit warming to below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels, but these pathways would require substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades and near zero emissions of CO2 by the end of the century. One novel approach to this challenge has been to complement existing GHG emission inventories with consumption-based accounting. Sweden is one of very few countries where this is approach is currently investigated. The new government could consider making this a more prominent part of national policy, and also highlight this perspective on the international agenda.

Q: Civil society has a big role to play in putting pressure on governments to act on climate change. What role do you see this synthesis report playing in that regard?
RK: The report provides ample argument to act quickly and decisively on climate change, both at home and abroad. For some civil society groups, “acting on climate change” is still limited to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I’d like to add that preparing for the risks of climate change and addressing the impacts is also a critical part of climate action. It’s not an either/or question: both are necessary. A focus on mitigation only would leave many around the world ill-prepared for unavoidable impacts, while a focus on adaptation only would lead to a level of climate change to which adaptation will no longer be feasible.

Read the new IPCC Synthesis Report (external link to IPCC)