I’ve been looking back at the last IPCC assessment report from 2022 (yes, a climate nerd moment). Deniers may say the science is muddy, but the “Summary for Policymakers” is darn clear and a great reminder of where we are. Here are 10 big takeaways/reminders and a few comments on what may have changed in 2 years:
๐. ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ , “across all major sectors.” But the rate of growth was slower in the 2010s than the 2000s. So we’re losing slower. Yay?
๐. ๐๐ญ๐จ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ญ ๐.๐๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฅ๐ข๐ค๐๐ฅ๐ฒ (they were understated). Even 2C requires “rapid acceleration of mitigation efforts.” Every year that goes by, the pace of acceleration needed rises. 1.5C is nearly impossible now.
๐. ๐๐ง๐๐ช๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐จ๐๐ฏ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ. The richest 10% of households contribute “disproportionately”, but climate action can reduce inequality.
๐. ๐๐ ๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ง ๐ข๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ. “The lifetime of existing and planned fossil fuel infrastructure exceeds [the 1.5C budget].” This is a gut punch. Is this still as true, given how fast some clean tech is coming on line? A related conclusion was “risk of lock-in” in inefficient buildings. Some improvement in this I think — heavy industry infrastructure, like steel and cement plants, are increasingly using low-carbon techs.
๐. ๐๐ญ’๐ฌ ๐๐ก๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ง ๐๐จ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ .ย “The economic benefit of limiting to 2C…exceeds cost of mitigation”. Costs of clean techs keep dropping, and there are great options “feasible to deploy at scale”.
๐. ๐๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐’๐ซ๐ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ง๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก.ย “tracked financial flows fall short of levels needed [for] mitigation.” Less true now, but still true: the world spent ~$2 trillion on clean tech in 2023…but we need $5T per year to even consider 1.5C.
๐. ๐๐ ๐ง๐๐๐ “๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ค๐๐ ๐๐ฌ”, which I read as systems thinking and partnership/cooperation (a main theme in my book Net Positive).
๐. ๐๐ ๐ง๐๐๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฌ๐๐๐ฅ๐, i.e., “coordinated action throughout value chains to promote all mitigation options”, including deep changes in how we make things, energy use, circularity, etc.
๐. ๐๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ซ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ซ๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ข๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ก๐๐ง๐ ๐. Consumption needs to be on the table, especially among that richest 10% creating most of the emissions. I haven’t seen a lot of appetite to really talk about consumption. There’s more noise about “Degrowth” agendas, but those are incredibly hard to pitch to people (see France protests on green policies)
๐๐ …๐๐ง๐ ๐ซ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ซ๐๐จ๐ง ๐๐๐ฉ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐. People may not realize that massive sequestration is already heavily built into the models. By latter half of century, we have to do this at scale (including planting trees, capturing carbon in soils, using biomass fuels, and outright capture from the air).
Two years ago, the news on this assessment was a bit odd, saying that net zero and 1.5 were “possible”, which was a highly optimistic reading.
The problem we face is enormous, and actions need to match that scale. The scientific community keeps making that very clear.
We should listen, eh?
(See some discussion on LinkedIn, with comments about the 10th point in particular. People have strong opinions about sequestration and the right pathways — a blog for another day…)
- If you enjoyed this post, please pass it on. Subscribe to get all of Andrew’s articles in your in-box.ย
- Follow Andrew on LinkedIn (I’ve exited Facebook and paused Twitter for now)
- Join the Net Positive movement or to expand your learning, check out our new Net Positive online classes and other executive education offerings.
2411
