Bob and André talked to Sudarmanto Budi Nugroho (“Toto”) and Eric Zusman, two IGES experts who were involved in Working Group III (Climate Mitigation) of the 6th Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The latest report in the IPCC AR6 series, the WGIII Report summarises the latest knowledge on climate mitigation options, building on the work of Working Groups I (the Physical Basis of Climate Change) and II (Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability).
The reports that the IPCC has produced since its establishment in 1988 tell us where we are with climate change and produce scientific inputs that inform policy and decision-making to address this crisis. The IPCC is the only UN body for assessing the science of climate change.
We had such a fascinating discussion learning about the process of producing the report, including the review process of each chapter and the complicated issues around equity in selecting members of the Working Groups. In this conversation, we did not dive into the nitty-gritty details of the report, but this is what we know: we are not curbing emissions fast enough to be on track to limit warming to 1.5ºC, and national goals have to be even more ambitious. The good news is that the cost of technological innovations has come down faster than previously anticipated, lowering the barrier to taking action. There is an ever-narrowing but still open window of opportunity.
On another occasion, we hope to have a chance to revisit the report’s content in more depth.
Helpful resources:
About our guests:
Sudarmanto Budi Nugroho (referred to as “Toto” in this conversation) is a Research Manager in IGES' City Taskforce. He co-authored Chapter 10 on transport, as well as the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
Eric Zusman is Research Leader in IGES' Integrated Sustainability Centre. He co-authored Chapter 17: Accelerating the transition in the context of sustainable development.
"About Sustainability..." is a podcast brought to you by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), an environmental policy think-tank based in Hayama, Japan. IGES experts are concerned with environmental and sustainability challenges. Everything shared on the podcast will be off-the-cuff discussion, and any viewpoints expressed are those held by the speaker at the time of recording. They are not necessarily official IGES positions.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Bob (00:12):
It's good to be back with the
About Sustainability...
Podcast.
In this episode, we talk toour colleagues, Eric and Toto,
about climate science and howit's linked to policy through
the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change,
also called the IPCC.
The IPCC produces assessmentreports every seven years,
and these assessment reportsare authored by
three Working Groups.
(00:33):
Both Eric and Toto have beenpart of the authoring process
in IPCC Working Group III.
Sudarmanto Budi Nugroho,who we called Toto
in our office andduring this discussion, is a
research manager in IGES'City Taskforce.
He co-authored Chapter 10 ontransport as well is the
Summary for Policymakers,which we abbreviate as SPM of
(00:55):
the assessment report.
And Eric Zusman isa Research Leader and IGES'
IntegratedSustainability Centre.
He co-authored Chapter 17"Accelerating the Transition in
the Contextof Sustainable Development".
We had such afascinating discussion,
learning about the process ofproducing the report that we
weren't able to dig into thecontent of the report quite as
(01:15):
much as I would have liked,but hopefully we'll have a
chance to revisit this topicon another occasion.
Particularly interesting to mewas the review process that
each chapter goes through andthe complicated issues around
equity in selecting members ofthe working groups.
That's enough of me tellingyou about it.
It Is time for youto hear it for yourself.
(01:35):
Maybe, Eric, if I couldask you to tell us a little bit
about what the IPCC is?
Eric (01:42):
IPCC or the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change is basically apanel that's made up of 195
representatives fromgovernments from
different countries, and it wascreated to provide state-of-the-
art science on climate changefor those governments.
(02:03):
It was created in 1988, so [itis] important to underline here
that this was at a time whenthere was a lot of interest in
strengthening the scientificfoundation for policy on
international issueslike climate change.
There was hope that bybringing together the most
(02:28):
cutting edge and leadingscientists that this would also
create the foundation for aclimate change agreement.
And so, created in 1988by the UNEP (the United Nations
Environment Programme)and the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO).
(02:49):
And after it was created,it started working on a series
of assessment reports,and those assessment
reports would, as hoped,also sit at the centre of the
main framework agreementon climate change, the United
Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC).
Bob (03:10):
Okay.
So you said it wascreated by UNEP and WMO.
And then there's alsothe UNFCCC, which you just
defined the acronym for.
So is IPCC- isit its own organization?
Is it under the umbrellaof UNEP or...
Kind of, what's therelationship between all of
those bodies?
Eric (03:28):
Right.
So yeah, in terms of the IPCC,it informs the UNFCCC, but it's
not underneath the UNFCCC,but it is underneath the
UNEP and WMO.
And the UNFCCC can makerequests to the IPCC to develop
(03:53):
reports that are of importanceto the UNFCCC processes.
So for instance, recently manyof us might have heard of this
1.5-degree report ([SpecialReport on Global
Warming of 1.5ºC]), and thiswas developed by the IPCC based
upon a request or based uponactually one of the decisions
(04:14):
coming out of discussions overthe implementation
of the UNFCCC.
André (04:21):
Eric, in the case of IPBES (the Intergovernmental
Platform on Biodiversityand Ecosystem Services),
it's regarded as independent.
And as far as I understand,the IPCC is the same and I've
never quite understoodwhat that means.
Whereas so the CBD (theConvention on Biological
Diversity) is like the UNFCCCor very similar.
(04:41):
They're both UN bodies, but thenthe IPBES and, as far
as I understand, the IPCC areregarded as 'independent'.
Do you know whatis meant by that?
Eric (04:51):
For my understanding, the IPCC is under the UNEP
and WMO, but the conclusionsthat are reached during the
reporting process areindependent of UNEP and WMO.
In other words, you know,the UNEP and WMO, like any
other stakeholders, they cancomment on the reports,
which are sort of the centraloutputs of the IPCC, but they
(05:16):
don't have undue influence onthe outcomes of those reports.
André (05:20):
Okay.
Toto (05:21):
Yeah, probably in addition to that, as part of
the UNFCCC process, the resultof the assessment report
usually is input[s] forthe UNFCCC process.
For example, the Kyoto Protocolin 97-two years before that
there was the assessment report(AR2) as input for the [Kyoto]
(05:42):
process and also like [for] theParis agreement [in] 2015,
[in] 2014, there was anassessment report (AR5).
So I mean, theIPCC report[s] contribute to
the UNFCCC process, actually.
Bob (05:57):
These assessment reports and the working groups
understand from the littlereading I did before we started
this that there are threeworking groups that contribute
each assessment report.
And then I think the two of youare both part of one of
the working groups.
So if you could talkabout that a little bit,
I'd appreciate it.
Toto (06:16):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Thank you, Bob.
Well, in the beginning,it's not really well
established - the workinggroups - because we
were just starting, but theprocess [was] evolving.
So then in the lasttwo assessment reports,
there are three differentworking groups: the first
working group (WGI) on thephysical science examines what
is the physical condition ofEarth related to the climate,
(06:38):
and then Working Group II(WGII) is about the adaptation
to the climate vulnerability.
And the third (WGIII} is onmitigation and [what] we should
do to mitigate climate [change]in the future.
That'sbasically the explanation.
Bob (06:52):
To which working group are you contributing?
I don't know if you're in justone or if you contribute to
multiple ones, but could youelaborate on that?
What is IGES doingwith the working groups?
Toto (07:03):
Yeah, we are working particularly in
Working Group III,which is mitigation
to climate [change].
However, in the process, we arealso invited to contribute as
reviewers to like, to make acomment to the other group[s],
and also especially,because like for example,
during the process, we alsorefer to what we have done in
(07:26):
the [other] working groups.
Like Working Group I is on thephysical science and then we
use that to determine whatmitigation action is needed.
That's basically the linkagebetween the [working] groups.
Bob (07:40):
So what does it mean to to contribute to a working group?
What work are you doing?
And it sounds like maybe theoutputs of these working groups
are not coming out at thesame time, but are coming out
in a staggered fashion.
Are they all kind of producingoutputs about the same time,
or is it one feeds intothe next one, [which] feeds
into the next one?
Toto (07:59):
It's a very good question.
The first part - starting withthe physical examination of
climate [on Earth] in WorkingGroup I, because this is the
basic foundation, for example,regarding the future condition.
And then, that will be usefulfor the Working Group
II for adaptation, and how weneed to adapt to the situation
and then to avoid some barriersin the future, to make it
(08:20):
better in the future.
And then we need todo some mitigation.
That's basically the sequence[of the three
working groups' focus].
And yes, of course, it is notin parallel, but in series
[sequence] like the first isWorking Group I and then
Working Group II and thenWorking Group III.
André (08:33):
Does that mean that the policy options that are
provided by these reports,is that done only for Working
Group II and III, or isit done for all three of them?
Do all three of them provideoptions for policymakers?
Eric (08:47):
I think Working Group II and Working Group III have a
stronger emphasis on policy.
And we're supposed to be,may I say, "policy relevant",
but not "policy prescriptive".
I think the word that Andréused options'' is a good word
in the sense that we outlinewhat some of the options might
be and some of theirbenefits and drawbacks.
And we imply what therecommendation might be,
(09:09):
but we're not telling thegovernments exactly what they
need to do.
Bob (09:13):
And so then the output is this report.
Toto (09:15):
The last product is the Synthesis Report, a synthesis
from the three working groupsthat will be published in
this coming October.
So after the three workinggroups are done, then they make
a synthesis of thethree different reports.
Bob (09:30):
Okay.
So that's another like kind of"editing and putting everything
together" process that happensafter the working groups have
their work done -is that...
Toto (09:39):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Bob (09:39):
That makes sense, yeah.
Toto (09:40):
Yeah.
Eric (09:40):
In terms of the review of these reports, there is a
pretty extensive review processfor all three of the
Working Group reports.
And so you develop threedifferent drafts and each time
you develop a draft, you'll getcomments on the content.
André (09:58):
Eric, who are those comments from?
Eric (09:59):
Yeah.
So the [draft documents] areopen to the public and to
governments and researchers,and I would say it varies from
one chapter to the next,but I would say researchers,
research institutes with anenvironmental focus and then
governments are sort ofthree biggest groups.
Toto (10:17):
We started the assessment report in 2019 and then we have
the first draft in 2020,and then we received more than
30,000 commentsfrom...This is open.
André (10:31):
30,000!
Toto (10:32):
Yes, 30,000, or more than 30,000.
And then we revised based onthe comments and then [we came]
to the second order draftin 2021, I think.
And then we alsoreceived another 29,000.
Then we have the final draft.
The final draftis only commented [on]
by the governments.
O n that, we receiveabout 5,000 comments.
(10:53):
So in total we receiveabout 59, 212 review
comments in total.
And then after we finish thedraft and the government people
comment about4,000-5,000 [comments], then we
finish the final draft,and then we make a summary:
what we call a Summaryfor Policymakers (SPM).
I'm a drafting member of theSummary for Policymakers.
(11:16):
Several authors from eachchapter are selected to make a
summary of each chapterbecause in total, we have 2,912
pages in the whole report,so nobody will read that one.
So then we make a summary,which is about 64 pages.
Eric (11:33):
Just quickly on the review process, too.
[For] all of those comments,we need to have a response to
every one of them.
It doesn't mean we have toaccept every single one
of them, but they basicallygive us this monster
spreadsheet and-
Toto (11:46):
Yeah.
Eric (11:47):
And then, you know, I don't know
how it was done in the chaptersthat you worked on, Toto.
But basically, you're assigneda cluster of comments and you
need to write down either'accept' or 'reject' or
'partially accept' and howyou're going to deal
with the comment.
Toto (12:03):
Yeah, yeah.
Because first you make acategory of the comment.
Like "this is a substantivecomment" or "editorial
comment" or others.
Like for editorial, we makejust like edits, okay.
But if it's substantial,then we need to respond whether
we accept that comment or wereject or something like that.
Eric (12:21):
The commenting or responding to the commenting
process is in some ways just asdifficult or as time-consuming
as the drafting process.
The comments are coming fromsort of two types
of categories, at leastfrom my impression.
One is researchers that want toget their own research cited
within the IPCC.
So they're basically saying,"you should look at this
(12:42):
article and cite this article".
And then the other,governments are checking every
word and the toneof the phrasing and whatnot.
So, you know, if there'ssomething that says, you know,
"fossil fuel subsidies are nota good thing", you might have a
government say "it might not bea good thing in this context,
but in this context, it mightactually be a good thing so
please check that".
(13:02):
There's an effort, even thoughwe're trying to be policy
relevant and notpolicy prescriptive, there's an
effort to strongly influencethings by governments.
Toto (13:12):
Yeah.
Yeah, that's true.
That's true.
Because this needs to beapproved by 195 member states
and the approval session isabout two weeks [long].
It's about approv[ing] 60 pagesof the SPM.
I mentioned before that [thefull report] is, what,
2912 [pages long] and then wemake it- slim it down
to 64 [pages].
(13:32):
Those 64 [pages] need to beapproved by the governments.
Line by line.
Sentence by sentence.
Bob (13:38):
Yeah.
It sounds like areally tough, grueling process.
How do yougo through that process?
I guess, two questions (13:42):
One is, a lot of
these events we've beendiscussing in the past,
conversations we've had havebeen substantially delayed
because of COVID.
And I wonder ifthat has impacted this process.
And then what is that process?
Are you meeting in person withworkshops or are you doing it
differently than you normallywould under the restrictions
around COVID?
Eric (14:01):
With COVID, I think like much of the work that we do,
you know, there's been a Zoomification of the way that we've
developed the report.
And I mean, prior to COVID,we'd have these author meetings
- in-person author meetings -and Toto and I attended
two of these.
And basically at those meetingsyou have small group
discussions with your-with the chapter that
(14:24):
you're assigned to, and thenthere's also plenary
discussions as well ascross-group discussions.
And, in each of those fora,you're constantly thinking
about conceiving, you know,how you're going to develop
the text, especiallyfor the chapter that
you're assigned to, and then,I think, as the
process evolves, you might joinother chapters or you might
(14:45):
become involved in otherchapters or
other related activities.
And at least for me,the most grueling part was the
in-chapter work.
I mean, we'd have these reallyintense 2- to 3-
hour drafting discussions.
You would sit within a roomwith really smart and dedicated
people and try to developsomething that captures the
(15:07):
essence of what's happeningin the literature.
And so really we're trying toassess the literature, but part
of it also is to synthesise itin a way that makes
it compelling, intriguing,and will motivate action
on the ground.
So it's partiallyan assessment, but there's a
lot of synthesis going on thereand interacting with these
Albert Einstein-, Elinor Ostrom-type of people in this room to
(15:30):
build that synthesis in a waythat you can really
move things forward.
In our chapter, we focused onaccelerating the transition in
the contextof sustainable development.
So we had twothemes that were pretty new.
The whole chapter itself wasa new chapter.
It hadn't been covered as achapter as such in
(15:51):
the reporting process.
And these two themes were (1)this accelerating transition -
so this whole idea ofsustainability transitions,
which has really grown over thepast 15 years or so in the work
on climate change andsustainable development -
Sustainable transitions was oneof the themes that we tried to
deal with a lot.
And the other (2)was in the context
of sustainable development,and so making linkages to the
(16:12):
SustainableDevelopment Goals (SDGs).
Bob (16:14):
Is this leading into another international
negotiation?
Eric (16:18):
I don't think you'll get another high profile agreement
like theParis Agreement necessarily.
Toto (16:23):
The intent is to submit this report before the COP
27 in Egypt.
So this will be a kindof input to the next meeting.
André (16:33):
I wanted to ask two kind of unrelated questions.
So let me ask them at the sametime and then maybe one of you
can take one and the other cantake the other question.
The one is just to confirm thatthe the report writing is based
on existing literature, as faras I understand.
Right?
Eric (16:51):
Yeah.
André (16:52):
Okay.
So it's quite- perhaps a "yes"is all that's required
for that, but feelfree to elaborate, but, Yeah,
I think it's just maybeimportant for people to know
that the [empirical] researchis not done during the
compilation of the report.
It's drawing on existingliterature at which needs to
have been submitted by aparticular date somewhere
during the assessment process.
(17:12):
And then another question is,Toto, you mentioned earlier on
the SPM (the Summary forPolicymakers) and you also
mentioned that the documentitself is nearly 3000
pages long, and you jokinglysaid nobody will read that,
which is perhaps true.
But then whydoes the document exist?
You know, why have thatdocument if nobody's going to
(17:32):
read it or is it a case of theSPM provid[ing] links to the
documents that you can then goand search for additional
information in thefull document ?
Is that the idea?
Toto (17:41):
"Yes, so I first will answer on the SPM.
The SPM is kind of a synthesisof our working group report.
And in the summary, there [are]headline statement[s]
and bullet point[s].
Each of them [are] linkedto the report.
So for example,headline statement #1 - this
(18:01):
one links to Chapter 1,for example, on the framing
because the first part is theintroduction and framing.
So if you read this Summary forPolicymakers (for the
governments) and then they needto have more details, then it
[is] supported bya main report, basically.
André (18:18):
Okay.
Right.
Eric (18:19):
The answer to your question, Andre, about the
literature is that, yes,it's assessment of
the literature, and it'ssupposed to be a
systematic literature review.
So you're supposed to usethings like Scopus or other
search engines to do a keywordsearch and then determine what
are the sort of key themes,and then to organise it and
(18:41):
synthesise it in a waythat's once again,
"policy relevant".
Toto (18:45):
Probably the systematic review is - what I understand
from the process - is in partof [efforts] to avoid bias.
For example, like walking andcycling is actually
good for health.
This is the examplein my chapter.
But we have literature [that]also said like, it also
increases the risk of injury ortraffic accidents and also air
(19:07):
pollution- like,receive air pollution.
So we need to cover both in ourassessment - like, this is good
for health, but also[there are] risks.
But we also have "levelsof confidence", like, if most
of the literature says "A",you can have high confidence,
but if some literature says A,but other literature says B,
(19:29):
which is the opposite [of A],then we need to decrease the
confidence level of thisstatement, whether this
will be medium orlow in confidence.
And so that's basicallyhow we do the assessment
in this report.
Bob (19:42):
How are the the contributors to these working
groups selected?
Eric (19:46):
First, IPCC make up a call for submission of author -
to be authors for thisone - nominations in 2017.
And countries can nominate somepeople or organisations can
submit the nomination becauseit is open.
And then in total, the IPCCreceives about 800 applicants
(20:09):
for this position, and thenthey select based on
the composition, like inconsideration of developing
and developed countries,North and South, and also like
gender balance, etc.
And then in the [end] thenumber of spots is about 278
authors who areselected to participate to
(20:32):
develop this report.
But this[opportunity] is voluntary.
So you should remember thatworking in the
IPCC is voluntary.
You cannot getpaid from anywhere.
So for about 3,4 years, it is voluntary,
consuming- time-consuming but voluntary.
So it is not really attractivefor some people.
(20:53):
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's basically the basic idea.
Bob (20:57):
I can see why it could be important that is unpaid or
necessary that is unpaid.
But I wonder ifthat also inserts a bias
into the document.
If the only people who cancontribute to this paper are
people who can spend three orfour years of significant
(21:17):
unpaid time to contributeto the report, maybe that
eliminates a large group ofpeople from being able to
participate in this process.
Toto (21:26):
That's actually true.
I talked with an author frommy country, Indonesia, when the
national government was sendingnominations to organisations
within the country.
Some of them were hesitant todo because this is unpaid.
So you need to- have tospend a lot of energy for
(21:49):
this unpaid [work].
Why is it unpaid?
Because we need to havea neutral position.
As mentioned, we needto avoid bias.
Every year we sign[off that] we don't have
any specific interest.
That is tomake this process look neutral.
But actually, when we wediscuss in our chapter,
for example, authors also havesome preference like what needs
(22:13):
to be highlighted.
So this is some, some very gooddebate and discussion on which
[options] should be prioritisedor something like that.
Because we are talking withthe- Working Group III is
talking about like sensitiveissues on mitigation - very
sensitive for some countryor some region.
(22:36):
But we need to make it,as mentioned by Eric,
policy relevant.
"These are options." "Okay.
Well, this is sensitivefor you, but this is an option".
We can frankly say like that.
André (22:49):
And is there quite a strong effort made to ensure
representation- globalrepresentation and to balance
between developed anddeveloping countries?
Is that something that'sdiscus-ed in some detail in the
planning stages?
Toto (23:05):
Yeah.
They try it.
Like in my- for example,in my chapter, the coordinating
lead authors - we havetwo in the beginning: one from
Australia (male) andthe other one,
female from Brazil.
So they try to haveboth origin and also developing
and developed [countries].
And also gender balance.
(23:26):
And within the team members,we cover almost all five
continents (23:31):
one from America, one- two from Europe and
several from Asia,and also from Africa.
We have also from Africa.
Eric (23:45):
I think that's- One of the criteria in selecting the
author group isthe regional representation
and gender balance.
How that applies toany specific person,
it's difficult to judge, but interms of the assignment to the
different chapters,you definitely see an emphasis.
The coordinating lead authors,there's usually one from
developed and onefrom developing country.
(24:05):
And then within thegroup itself,
as Toto suggested, it's acrossmany different regions with a
pretty significant emphasison gender balance.
André (24:12):
Do you know if that's always been like that,
going right back to thebeginning of IPCC.
Has there always been thateffort to achieve balance or is
it something that's developeda long time, over time?
Eric (24:24):
I think, André, that it's become a growing
point of emphasis.
To be honest with you,I don't know for the
first assessment report,how that played out.
But I do recall maybe...
Toto, like at the very firstauthors' meeting in Edinburgh,
I think there was a picture ofthe diversity of the group and
some reflection on how thatdiversity has- or how it's
(24:45):
become more diverse over time.
That sort of sticks inthe back of my head.
André (24:49):
Okay.
Right.
Bob (24:50):
So maybe we can now kind of pivot into the actual
content of the report.
Maybe we start at a high level.
What is the main- I don't knowwhat makes sense, but the top
few points of thisreport that really stand out?
Toto (25:06):
Yeah, actually I mentioned it a little bit when
I explained about the Summaryfor Policymakers, becuse one of
the reasons in the earlyintroduction of the Summary of
Policymakers, they mentionabout three main points.
First is involving theglobal landscape,
like processes likethe UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement
(25:30):
and UN SustainableDevelopment Agenda, etc.
.
And then the second point (25:34):
they recognise about the importance
of the new emergingactors and approaches.
Emerging actors, wehave a more significant,
important role ofthe non-state actor, cities and
subnational government sector,citizens, local communities,
transnational activities andpublic private partnerships.
(25:57):
And the third one, as mentionedby Eric also in the beginning,
there is a more tendency of- acloser relationship between
climate mitigation, adaptationand sustainable development.
We need to go to that direction.
And so basically, [these are]the new things that we embedded
in this new assessment report.
I think.
Eric (26:17):
I'll also throw in a few sort of headline messages, too.
I mean, I think one of the bigheadline messages, right,
is that we're still not doingenough to really avoid climate
emergency in order to staywithin this 1.5 degree goal by
the end of this century.
The emissions of greenhousegases between 2010 and 2019
(26:41):
continued to rise.
The good news is, compared tothe previous decade,
2000 to 2009, they rose at alower rate, but they still
continued to increase.
And this places us on atrajectory that makes it very
difficult for us to achievethis 1.5 degree goal.
(27:02):
And this 1.5 degree goal isreally sort of a key threshold
for avoiding serious sealevel rise,
avoiding intensification ofstorms and, you know, many of
the socioeconomic losses thatwould be attendant with some
of those impacts.
So we're notdoing enough still, and the
(27:25):
emissions continue to rise,although at a lower rate.
And this is also true, if youlook at - I mentioned
previously -these Nationally Determined
Contributions (NDCs).
These are the pledges thatcountries are coming up with
for their emission reductionsbetween 2020 and 2030.
And the NDCs are stillnot ambitious enough.
Commitments that are madewithin the NDCs are still
(27:46):
not ambitious enough.
So those are some ofthe worrying headlines.
Some of the good newsis that, especially, when we
look at some of thekey mitigation technologies,
looking at renewable energy,solar energy, wind power and
then in the transport sector -Toto will probably elaborate
upon this too- electric vehicles,
the diffusion rate of thesetechnologies has increased
(28:08):
dramatically and the costs ofthese technologies have come
down dramatically as well,much greater than what was
anticipated in many projections.
I think this is, you know,a silver lining in terms of our
ability to achieve some ofthese high-level goals.
And so the pace oftechnological change, I think,
is greater than what wasanticipated for some of
(28:30):
the key technologies.
And there's policyreasons for that.
And I think, you know,for instance, the growing use
of feed-in tariffs throughoutthe world has contributed to
the spread of renewableenergies and the uptake
of renewable energy.
So I think that's anotherimportant high-level message.
Toto (28:49):
In this report, we are talking about not only from the
supply side but also fromdemand side, from the user side.
This is the first time for theIPCC Working Group III to put
demand as oneof the key [options
among] mitigation options.
The good point in the result ofthis assessment [is that] we
can say like we alwaysencourage people to
(29:10):
change their lifestyle,change their behaviour,
in relation to do betterefforts on climate mitigation.
And actually the pandemicsituation (COVID) shows that
dramatic change in behaviour-this can be done in a very
short term because likein the case of lockdown, etc.
(29:34):
, in many countries,behavioural change at a massive
scale in a shorttime is possible.
So this is the sort of messagefrom the chapter on demand.
It is possible.
We cannot say it is impossible.
It is possible to do dramaticchange on a massive scale.
Bob (29:52):
From what I heard from you about the headline messages,
would it be correct to say thatkind of the big actions that we
need to take are that we needto do more to mitigate our
greenhouse gas emissions, and weneed to be more
ambitious in the goalswe set towards that?
Eric (30:09):
We need to be more ambitious, and we need to
do things at a bigger scale -on a spatial scale - and we
need to do thingsquicker in general.
So there needsto be faster speed,
bigger spatial scale.
And there also- this gets tothe point of demand.
There also needs to be moreattention to the qualitative
aspects of howwe're doing things.
(30:30):
Speed, scale and the quality ofour mitigation efforts,
I think, need to change.
And on the quality sideof things, and this gets to
Toto's point about demand -it's not- I think,
in past reports,there's been an evolution.
But I think in past reports,you know, the emphasis was a
lot on technologies and how doyou build a- you know, for lack
of a better term- how do youbuild a better 'mousetrap' or
(30:52):
how do you builda better power plant?
Or, you know, there's stillsome emphasis in this report -
How do you take some of thecarbon dioxide and trap it
underneath the ground?
Of course, that's all fineand well, but if we want to
improve the quality of ourmitigation efforts, and I think
that will also accelerate thespeed and change the scale,
then we need to think about,how do we change consumer
(31:15):
demand for different productsand different activities and do
so in a way that they're also -to go back to another example
that Toto raised - that it'salso improving the quality of
people's lives?
So we need to think about howwe can walk from our house to
the grocery store.
And when we're at thegrocery store, we need to think
(31:35):
about the productsthat we're purchasing.
So maybe we buy locally growntomatoes so that they don't
have to be shippedfrom another place.
And maybe those tomatoes needto be grown in fertilisers that
don't lead to greenhouse gases.
So we need to think a lot abouthow our individual actions and
(31:55):
our individual mindsetsinfluence demand for different
products and services in a waythat meet not just
climate goals, butbroader sustainability goals.
And in doing that, then it getsto a question of how do you do
that quickly at scale?
And I think that's where youstart getting into the policy
environment andthe institutional environment.
How do we create that sort ofstructure that supports that
type of decision making?
André (32:17):
Eric, very generally speaking,
getting into the policyside of things.
Do you guys think that moreneeds to be done on the
incentive side or onthe regulation side,
especially looking atgovernments?
And I guess that's pre-emptingyour answer a little bit, but I
suspect that that will dependvery much on the
kind of government, right?
Because we have very differentkinds of government
(32:39):
around the world.
But let me leave it there.
Eric (32:41):
I think one of the themes that comes out of the report is
that there's a growing emphasison instrument mixes
or policy mixes.
Broadly, maybe 20 yearsago there, you know, there's a
lot of literature debating themerits of whether or not we
wanted to have a carbon tax orjust an absolute cap on
reductionsand regulatory standards.
(33:03):
But I think there's arealisation that especially to
move at scale, move quicker andachieve some of these
quality objectives, that in alot of contexts, you need to
combine government regulationwith some
market based incentives.
And then the third side of thattriangle is what I would call
sort ofinformation based instruments.
So awareness-raising or usingpeer pressure from public
(33:26):
on industry, using transparencytype mechanisms to motivate
industry to change.
A combination of those threethings in sort of a triangle,
I think, is sort ofwhat the option space is
looking like now.
And in different contexts,where you move on that triangle
and where you borrowfrom might vary.
So, you know, China might leanmore toward command-and-control
(33:48):
type of regulations.
But we also see, you know,their five year development
plans are combined now withemission trading schemes and
discussion of carbon taxes.
Even though China is sort ofmore top down, there's also
liberal use of some informationbased mechanisms
to awareness raising.
The context might determinewhere you're situated
(34:10):
on that triangle, butI think, overall, we're seeing
definitely a trend to sort ofthis policy mix approach.
And I think this leads toanother point is, that mix,
that policy mix - a lot ofthat's coming from literature
that's connected into this workon sustainability transitions.
And I think what we'rerealising now to once again
(34:32):
achieve these large scale,spatial scale,
quick, transformational typechanges of our systems, that we
need intervention atthree different levels, right?
So one of the other things thatyou see coming through from the
report is this literature onsustainability transitions that
also gets tied inwith this literature on
the instrument mixes.
(34:56):
One of the main approaches,sustainability transition is
what's called amultilevel perspective,
where they emphasise that thereneeds to be- in order for
big transformational changes,a lot of times, there needs to
be changes at whatthey call the landscape level.
So this can be like overarchingglobal markets or norms.
(35:17):
And a lot of times, things thathappen - big changes at the
landscape level happen due tobig exogenous shocks,
big external shocks like theDepression or what we've seen
recently with COVID-
André (35:27):
Pandemic, yeah.
Eric (35:28):
A pandemic.
Right?
So that changes the whole sortof way that the world views,
you know, how it operates,how markets operate.
And that creates a, you know,kind of, sort of a puncture
in the equilibrium.
It creates an opportunity,a window of opportunity to
change things at whatthey call the regime level.
And within the regime level,that's where you have your sort
(35:49):
of policy space andinstitutions and including
these different typesof regulatory mixes.
And so then, some of thepolicies and the mixes of
policies that come togethermight change and also the
institutionalarrangements might change.
So you mighthave now, for instance,
the transportation agency istalking more with the
(36:09):
environmental people about howwe create incentives for
teleworking because we havethis exogenous shock so
that...That space, the regimespace needs to change, too.
And then at the last level iswhat they call the niche, right?
And this iswhere innovation happens.
For instance, the developmentand the spread of lithium
(36:30):
batteries to support EVs.
This is a lot of times where,you know, people interact on an
individual or small group basiswith different technologies and
they begin to mushroom andgrow and cascade.
And you get opportunities fornot only innovation,
but imitation.
And so I think, you know,to achieve the 1.5
(36:50):
degree goals, a lot moreemphasis on the demand side,
a lot more emphasis on policymixes and a lot more emphasis
on aligning what happens across- this is, I know,
abstract terminology, but -this landscape level,
the regime level and andthe niche level.
Toto (37:10):
Okay.
In addition tothe economic instruments,
I think we have mentionedspecifically in the Summary for
Policymakers that selecteconomic instruments have been
effective in reducing emissions,complemented
by regulatory instruments.
So we can cannot select whichone is better than the other.
(37:32):
It's complementary.
That is better in mainly thenational and regional level,
and this is at ahigh confidence [level].
André (37:41):
This next question relates to the technological
side of things, and alsoa bit about- you mentioned
exogenous shocks, Eric.
I guess this has got a littlebit to do with both of those.
But I have heard and I don'tknow how correct this is,
but I've heard that the biggestgain that's been made in
reducing carbon emissions inthe last ten years has been the
switch to fracking ([hydraulicfracturing]) in the
(38:03):
US in particular.
So this is natural gas frackingto replace coal and oil and
particularly in the US, but Ithink elsewhere as well.
So this is verymuch not a renewable energy.
It's another fossil fuel,but it's about twice as clean
as oil and I think severaltimes cleaner than coal,
although I'm going beyondmy expertise here.
(38:24):
But, so I mean, I guessI don't know what the question
is here.
I'm just curious what you thinkabout that, the fact that you
the biggest success that'shappened recently, if I'm
correct in my understanding,is something that has nothing
to do with renewable energy.
Yeah.
Let me just leave itthere and see what you think.
Eric (38:42):
I would need to check my facts and data to
confirm that, but that soundsabout right to me, André, and I
think it highlightsa few things.
I mean, I think,in some ways, it does
suggest that sometimes,looking at it from a sort of
a positive light.
Right?
And I think this issomething that, you know,
I remember, actually, I tookfrom your presentation,
André, from ISAP (InternationalForum on Sustainable Asia
and the Pacific).
Right?
(39:02):
Sometimes, sort of smallincremental changes can also
lead to transformative changes.
So if we think of fracking andthe use of natural gas as sort
of incremental or bridgetechnology that might open the
door for a transition torenewables and even
cleaner energy sources,in that way, it would be a sort
of positive way oflooking at it.
(39:24):
And it does, in some ways,suggest the potential for
small-scale technologicalchange to open opportunities
for bigger changes.
Although this is,in some ways, suboptimal.
And one of the side effectsalso of fracking is the leak
of methane, which is also agrowing and really powerful
greenhouse gas and alsocontributes to air pollution.
(39:47):
I guess I would give sort of asplit assessment here, as I
think it does suggest the powerof industry and government to
work together to lead to bigtransformative changes,
potentially.
But the impacts of thosetransformative changes - given
the seriousness of the climatechange problem - are perhaps a
little bit worrying.
Having said that, I think theother thing that we have seen,
(40:10):
for instance, with the renewableenergy revolution is, as I
mentioned at the outset,that the pace of
change has gone beyondwhat was anticipated.
And even in the US, we've seena transformation of local
energy systems and whatnot.
So what I would like to seehappen over the next five years
is that same quote that yougave is that renewable energy
(40:32):
is the biggest reduction.
And I think that's possible.
I do think that's possible.
So maybe it's the same type oflogic and model that led to the
sort of fracking revolution,but applied more towards other
technologies and socio-technological change could be
that sort of headline quote.
I look forward to writing thatarticle with you in five years.
Bob (40:54):
A little sidebar on fracking,
though (40:56):
I've also heard terrible reports about fracking
making local groundwaterflammable by the gas getting
into the water and things.
So I think there needs to besome consideration of the local
environment with these things.
I don't know if that'sa question, but yeah.
Eric (41:12):
Yes.
But if you look at the Summaryfor Policymakers and then if
you look across theentire report, there is a very
strong emphasis on analysingthe possible synergies and
possible tradeoffs betweenclimate change and different
development concerns.
In the case that Bob raised,water pollution obviously is
(41:36):
and clean water is obviouslya big concern.
And so I think one of the othermessages and one of the things
that comes out of the report is- and this also gets back to
the point raised by André - iswhen we set up this sort of
collection ofdifferent instruments, we also
need to consider how thoseinstruments can reduce or
(41:59):
optimise some of the trade-offsand make sure that we're not
producing more methane,we're not producing
more water pollution.
And that's going to require,you know, collection a suite of
different options a lot oftimes, to make sure that
our water sources are strongerand our climate
policies are stronger.
Bob (42:19):
We hear about what we can do on the individual level or
in our local communities.
But you also hear that nothingthat we can do at the
individual level is going tomake a significant impact.
And any significant change todeal with mitigating the issues
of climate change is going tohave to be at a large scale
with governmental action andlarge industry action.
(42:40):
What's your sense on where- andhow do I phrase this?
Where does thebalance fall on that?
Is there something that we cando at an individual level that
has a significant impact?
Eric (42:51):
I'm going to suggest three things.
Two of them are sortof more on a personal,
individual level, but I thinkcan lead to bigger changes.
And then one is more in gettingback to sort of the research
side on the individual level.
I think one of the mostimportant things is we need to
teach students more aboutwhat's happening with climate
change and what's happeningin this report.
(43:13):
From my perspective,there's still far too limited
offerings in terms of courseson climate science and
especially climate policy andsustainable development,
and how those linkages workwith each other.
And if this is going to be,you know, a generation-defining
issue and problem, we mightneed universities to have
(43:34):
climate scienceand policy departments,
rather than sort ofbeing sort of nested
within different disciplines.
And within IGES, we're startingto work with Kyushu University
and we've done online trainingsall over the place.
So I think this teaching aspect- and it's not just teaching
and awareness raising, but alsoempowering individuals to be
(43:56):
like the next - Toto might havea better sense of this - but,
you know, the Indonesianversion of Greta Thunberg.
We need those type of youngpeople that have this knowledge
and can inform policy and getelected into office or
become business leaders.
And I think, as researchers,we need to be better and more
targeted in how we do that.
So that's one thing.
(44:17):
And then the second thing is Ithink we need to have more
discussions with people thatdon't necessarily believe
what's in this report.
At IGES and I think a lot ofthe research institutes we
work with, we have a tendencyto preach to the choir.
But I think if we can convertpeople that are not so aware of
these issues and also might beinclined to be more
skeptical about them, then Ithink that opens pathways for a
(44:40):
really big transformation.
So education and speakingto the unconverted.
And then on the research side,one of the things I think that
we need to do more of - andthis is also featured in the
report a little bit, to acertain extent - is better
incorporation of the socialscience research into
especially the technical andthe modelling research.
(45:02):
So there's more and morediscussion in this report of
what we call feasibility.
And a lot of times,this idea of feasibility,
when it's done in amodelling context, is about the
technical or the economicfeasibility of
reducing greenhouse gases.
And so when people buildthe models, they see whether or
not there's enough technologythat's available and whether or
(45:25):
not it's affordable enough indifferent countries to be
deployed at a large scale.
And of course, that's important.
But what we're recognising nowis this sort of social
feasibility and the politicaland institutional feasibility
of a lot of mitigation optionsis pretty low.
And the feasibility or thebarriers in these areas are
(45:46):
just as high as the technicaland the economic barriers.
And so one way I think,to motivate policymakers is to
- to go backto Toto's terminology -
the enabling environment,to create this enabling
environment or to use powerfulregulatory mixes is to show
them that when we incorporatethese things into our models,
this is the type ofthing that can unlock some of
(46:08):
the mitigation potential.
This might be the reason whywe've been doing this
integrated assessment modellingfor about 30 years.
But increasingly, we always seein the other report as- we
still have these ambition gapsor these implementation gaps.
And I think part of the reasonis social science researchers
do not have asa prominent place in
(46:29):
the modelling community.
So if we can, in ourmodelling framework, show that
increasing capacity in some ofthese areas is one of the keys
to moving forward, I think thatwill also help bring about
bigger andmore transformative changes.
Bob (46:43):
With that, I think I'd like to wrap up by asking for
your final thoughts on theprocess or the
report in general.
Eric (46:52):
Well, I think just maybe two final thoughts.
One is I think that one of thekey insights from this report
is climate change and solvingthe climate change problem is
less and less about justthinking about climate change,
but thinking about developmentand how we do development.
And so you see some emphasis onshifting development pathways.
(47:16):
And I think that's the sort ofVenn diagram here is that we
have this big circleof development, right?
And then within that circle,there is a sustainable
development and there's ways torespond to the
climate change problem,you know, sort of a smaller
circle that are sustainable andthere's others that are
(47:36):
not so sustainable.
And I think we're becoming moreattuned to what that balance
looks like and how tolean more into the sustainable
development pathway in a waythat will shift the way
we do development.
And I think that's somethingthat runs through all of the
chapters in the report,at least the ones
that I've read.
(47:57):
I have to be honest,I haven't read all 3000 pages
of the report.
And then the second thing is,I would suggest is for
me personally, not always,but most of the time, this was
one of the most nourishing andfulfilling experiences I've had
as a researcher, becauseto go back to this
multilevel perspective, one ofthe things that we're doing
(48:19):
with this report is changingthe sort of normative space,
the way that we look at theworld and, you know, where we
situate our space in the worldand changing that sort of norm-
this normative andideational space, I think would
be something that, you know,100 years from now - hopefully
the planet still exists in goodshape - you know, people will
(48:43):
look back on and say that thisis something that a bunch of
individuals came together to doin a way that really led to a
better world for futuregenerations and not
only people, but theplanet more generally.
And to contribute to that isreally sort of something that's
been quite an honour.
Bob (49:04):
Thank you for listening to about sustainability.
Please subscribe atpodcast.iges.jp or search
for About Sustainability...
Wherever you normallyget your podcasts.
If you've got feedback, you canreview us on your podcast
directory of choice or reachout on Twitter @IGES_EN.
(49:27):
About Sustainability...
is produced by the Institute forGlobal Environmental Strategies.
Any views expressed during thepodcast are those of the
speaker at the time ofrecording and do not
necessarily reflect theviews of IGES.
Thank you for choosing to spendyour time with us.
We don't take that lightly,and we hope you'll join
us next time.
It's good to be back with the
About Sustainability...
Podcast.
In this episode, we talk toour colleagues, Eric and Toto,
about climate science and howit's linked to policy through
the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change,
also called the IPCC.
The IPCC produces assessmentreports every seven years,
and these assessment reportsare authored by
three Working Groups.
(00:33):
Both Eric and Toto have beenpart of the authoring process
in IPCC Working Group III.
Sudarmanto Budi Nugroho,who we called Toto
in our office andduring this discussion, is a
research manager in IGES'City Taskforce.
He co-authored Chapter 10 ontransport as well is the
Summary for Policymakers,which we abbreviate as SPM of
(00:55):
the assessment report.
And Eric Zusman isa Research Leader and IGES'
IntegratedSustainability Centre.
He co-authored Chapter 17"Accelerating the Transition in
the Contextof Sustainable Development".
We had such afascinating discussion,
learning about the process ofproducing the report that we
weren't able to dig into thecontent of the report quite as
(01:15):
much as I would have liked,but hopefully we'll have a
chance to revisit this topicon another occasion.
Particularly interesting to mewas the review process that
each chapter goes through andthe complicated issues around
equity in selecting members ofthe working groups.
That's enough of me tellingyou about it.
It Is time for youto hear it for yourself.
(01:35):
Maybe, Eric, if I couldask you to tell us a little bit
about what the IPCC is?
Eric (01:42):
IPCC or the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change is basically apanel that's made up of 195
representatives fromgovernments from
different countries, and it wascreated to provide state-of-the-
art science on climate changefor those governments.
(02:03):
It was created in 1988, so [itis] important to underline here
that this was at a time whenthere was a lot of interest in
strengthening the scientificfoundation for policy on
international issueslike climate change.
There was hope that bybringing together the most
(02:28):
cutting edge and leadingscientists that this would also
create the foundation for aclimate change agreement.
And so, created in 1988by the UNEP (the United Nations
Environment Programme)and the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO).
(02:49):
And after it was created,it started working on a series
of assessment reports,and those assessment
reports would, as hoped,also sit at the centre of the
main framework agreementon climate change, the United
Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC).
Bob (03:10):
Okay.
So you said it wascreated by UNEP and WMO.
And then there's alsothe UNFCCC, which you just
defined the acronym for.
So is IPCC- isit its own organization?
Is it under the umbrellaof UNEP or...
Kind of, what's therelationship between all of
those bodies?
Eric (03:28):
Right.
So yeah, in terms of the IPCC,it informs the UNFCCC, but it's
not underneath the UNFCCC,but it is underneath the
UNEP and WMO.
And the UNFCCC can makerequests to the IPCC to develop
(03:53):
reports that are of importanceto the UNFCCC processes.
So for instance, recently manyof us might have heard of this
1.5-degree report ([SpecialReport on Global
Warming of 1.5ºC]), and thiswas developed by the IPCC based
upon a request or based uponactually one of the decisions
(04:14):
coming out of discussions overthe implementation
of the UNFCCC.
André (04:21):
Eric, in the case of IPBES (the Intergovernmental
Platform on Biodiversityand Ecosystem Services),
it's regarded as independent.
And as far as I understand,the IPCC is the same and I've
never quite understoodwhat that means.
Whereas so the CBD (theConvention on Biological
Diversity) is like the UNFCCCor very similar.
(04:41):
They're both UN bodies, but thenthe IPBES and, as far
as I understand, the IPCC areregarded as 'independent'.
Do you know whatis meant by that?
Eric (04:51):
For my understanding, the IPCC is under the UNEP
and WMO, but the conclusionsthat are reached during the
reporting process areindependent of UNEP and WMO.
In other words, you know,the UNEP and WMO, like any
other stakeholders, they cancomment on the reports,
which are sort of the centraloutputs of the IPCC, but they
(05:16):
don't have undue influence onthe outcomes of those reports.
André (05:20):
Okay.
Toto (05:21):
Yeah, probably in addition to that, as part of
the UNFCCC process, the resultof the assessment report
usually is input[s] forthe UNFCCC process.
For example, the Kyoto Protocolin 97-two years before that
there was the assessment report(AR2) as input for the [Kyoto]
(05:42):
process and also like [for] theParis agreement [in] 2015,
[in] 2014, there was anassessment report (AR5).
So I mean, theIPCC report[s] contribute to
the UNFCCC process, actually.
Bob (05:57):
These assessment reports and the working groups
understand from the littlereading I did before we started
this that there are threeworking groups that contribute
each assessment report.
And then I think the two of youare both part of one of
the working groups.
So if you could talkabout that a little bit,
I'd appreciate it.
Toto (06:16):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Thank you, Bob.
Well, in the beginning,it's not really well
established - the workinggroups - because we
were just starting, but theprocess [was] evolving.
So then in the lasttwo assessment reports,
there are three differentworking groups: the first
working group (WGI) on thephysical science examines what
is the physical condition ofEarth related to the climate,
(06:38):
and then Working Group II(WGII) is about the adaptation
to the climate vulnerability.
And the third (WGIII} is onmitigation and [what] we should
do to mitigate climate [change]in the future.
That'sbasically the explanation.
Bob (06:52):
To which working group are you contributing?
I don't know if you're in justone or if you contribute to
multiple ones, but could youelaborate on that?
What is IGES doingwith the working groups?
Toto (07:03):
Yeah, we are working particularly in
Working Group III,which is mitigation
to climate [change].
However, in the process, we arealso invited to contribute as
reviewers to like, to make acomment to the other group[s],
and also especially,because like for example,
during the process, we alsorefer to what we have done in
(07:26):
the [other] working groups.
Like Working Group I is on thephysical science and then we
use that to determine whatmitigation action is needed.
That's basically the linkagebetween the [working] groups.
Bob (07:40):
So what does it mean to to contribute to a working group?
What work are you doing?
And it sounds like maybe theoutputs of these working groups
are not coming out at thesame time, but are coming out
in a staggered fashion.
Are they all kind of producingoutputs about the same time,
or is it one feeds intothe next one, [which] feeds
into the next one?
Toto (07:59):
It's a very good question.
The first part - starting withthe physical examination of
climate [on Earth] in WorkingGroup I, because this is the
basic foundation, for example,regarding the future condition.
And then, that will be usefulfor the Working Group
II for adaptation, and how weneed to adapt to the situation
and then to avoid some barriersin the future, to make it
(08:20):
better in the future.
And then we need todo some mitigation.
That's basically the sequence[of the three
working groups' focus].
And yes, of course, it is notin parallel, but in series
[sequence] like the first isWorking Group I and then
Working Group II and thenWorking Group III.
André (08:33):
Does that mean that the policy options that are
provided by these reports,is that done only for Working
Group II and III, or isit done for all three of them?
Do all three of them provideoptions for policymakers?
Eric (08:47):
I think Working Group II and Working Group III have a
stronger emphasis on policy.
And we're supposed to be,may I say, "policy relevant",
but not "policy prescriptive".
I think the word that Andréused options'' is a good word
in the sense that we outlinewhat some of the options might
be and some of theirbenefits and drawbacks.
And we imply what therecommendation might be,
(09:09):
but we're not telling thegovernments exactly what they
need to do.
Bob (09:13):
And so then the output is this report.
Toto (09:15):
The last product is the Synthesis Report, a synthesis
from the three working groupsthat will be published in
this coming October.
So after the three workinggroups are done, then they make
a synthesis of thethree different reports.
Bob (09:30):
Okay.
So that's another like kind of"editing and putting everything
together" process that happensafter the working groups have
their work done -is that...
Toto (09:39):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Bob (09:39):
That makes sense, yeah.
Toto (09:40):
Yeah.
Eric (09:40):
In terms of the review of these reports, there is a
pretty extensive review processfor all three of the
Working Group reports.
And so you develop threedifferent drafts and each time
you develop a draft, you'll getcomments on the content.
André (09:58):
Eric, who are those comments from?
Eric (09:59):
Yeah.
So the [draft documents] areopen to the public and to
governments and researchers,and I would say it varies from
one chapter to the next,but I would say researchers,
research institutes with anenvironmental focus and then
governments are sort ofthree biggest groups.
Toto (10:17):
We started the assessment report in 2019 and then we have
the first draft in 2020,and then we received more than
30,000 commentsfrom...This is open.
André (10:31):
30,000!
Toto (10:32):
Yes, 30,000, or more than 30,000.
And then we revised based onthe comments and then [we came]
to the second order draftin 2021, I think.
And then we alsoreceived another 29,000.
Then we have the final draft.
The final draftis only commented [on]
by the governments.
O n that, we receiveabout 5,000 comments.
(10:53):
So in total we receiveabout 59, 212 review
comments in total.
And then after we finish thedraft and the government people
comment about4,000-5,000 [comments], then we
finish the final draft,and then we make a summary:
what we call a Summaryfor Policymakers (SPM).
I'm a drafting member of theSummary for Policymakers.
(11:16):
Several authors from eachchapter are selected to make a
summary of each chapterbecause in total, we have 2,912
pages in the whole report,so nobody will read that one.
So then we make a summary,which is about 64 pages.
Eric (11:33):
Just quickly on the review process, too.
[For] all of those comments,we need to have a response to
every one of them.
It doesn't mean we have toaccept every single one
of them, but they basicallygive us this monster
spreadsheet and-
Toto (11:46):
Yeah.
Eric (11:47):
And then, you know, I don't know
how it was done in the chaptersthat you worked on, Toto.
But basically, you're assigneda cluster of comments and you
need to write down either'accept' or 'reject' or
'partially accept' and howyou're going to deal
with the comment.
Toto (12:03):
Yeah, yeah.
Because first you make acategory of the comment.
Like "this is a substantivecomment" or "editorial
comment" or others.
Like for editorial, we makejust like edits, okay.
But if it's substantial,then we need to respond whether
we accept that comment or wereject or something like that.
Eric (12:21):
The commenting or responding to the commenting
process is in some ways just asdifficult or as time-consuming
as the drafting process.
The comments are coming fromsort of two types
of categories, at leastfrom my impression.
One is researchers that want toget their own research cited
within the IPCC.
So they're basically saying,"you should look at this
(12:42):
article and cite this article".
And then the other,governments are checking every
word and the toneof the phrasing and whatnot.
So, you know, if there'ssomething that says, you know,
"fossil fuel subsidies are nota good thing", you might have a
government say "it might not bea good thing in this context,
but in this context, it mightactually be a good thing so
please check that".
(13:02):
There's an effort, even thoughwe're trying to be policy
relevant and notpolicy prescriptive, there's an
effort to strongly influencethings by governments.
Toto (13:12):
Yeah.
Yeah, that's true.
That's true.
Because this needs to beapproved by 195 member states
and the approval session isabout two weeks [long].
It's about approv[ing] 60 pagesof the SPM.
I mentioned before that [thefull report] is, what,
2912 [pages long] and then wemake it- slim it down
to 64 [pages].
(13:32):
Those 64 [pages] need to beapproved by the governments.
Line by line.
Sentence by sentence.
Bob (13:38):
Yeah.
It sounds like areally tough, grueling process.
How do yougo through that process?
I guess, two questions (13:42):
One is, a lot of
these events we've beendiscussing in the past,
conversations we've had havebeen substantially delayed
because of COVID.
And I wonder ifthat has impacted this process.
And then what is that process?
Are you meeting in person withworkshops or are you doing it
differently than you normallywould under the restrictions
around COVID?
Eric (14:01):
With COVID, I think like much of the work that we do,
you know, there's been a Zoomification of the way that we've
developed the report.
And I mean, prior to COVID,we'd have these author meetings
- in-person author meetings -and Toto and I attended
two of these.
And basically at those meetingsyou have small group
discussions with your-with the chapter that
(14:24):
you're assigned to, and thenthere's also plenary
discussions as well ascross-group discussions.
And, in each of those fora,you're constantly thinking
about conceiving, you know,how you're going to develop
the text, especiallyfor the chapter that
you're assigned to, and then,I think, as the
process evolves, you might joinother chapters or you might
(14:45):
become involved in otherchapters or
other related activities.
And at least for me,the most grueling part was the
in-chapter work.
I mean, we'd have these reallyintense 2- to 3-
hour drafting discussions.
You would sit within a roomwith really smart and dedicated
people and try to developsomething that captures the
(15:07):
essence of what's happeningin the literature.
And so really we're trying toassess the literature, but part
of it also is to synthesise itin a way that makes
it compelling, intriguing,and will motivate action
on the ground.
So it's partiallyan assessment, but there's a
lot of synthesis going on thereand interacting with these
Albert Einstein-, Elinor Ostrom-type of people in this room to
(15:30):
build that synthesis in a waythat you can really
move things forward.
In our chapter, we focused onaccelerating the transition in
the contextof sustainable development.
So we had twothemes that were pretty new.
The whole chapter itself wasa new chapter.
It hadn't been covered as achapter as such in
(15:51):
the reporting process.
And these two themes were (1)this accelerating transition -
so this whole idea ofsustainability transitions,
which has really grown over thepast 15 years or so in the work
on climate change andsustainable development -
Sustainable transitions was oneof the themes that we tried to
deal with a lot.
And the other (2)was in the context
of sustainable development,and so making linkages to the
(16:12):
SustainableDevelopment Goals (SDGs).
Bob (16:14):
Is this leading into another international
negotiation?
Eric (16:18):
I don't think you'll get another high profile agreement
like theParis Agreement necessarily.
Toto (16:23):
The intent is to submit this report before the COP
27 in Egypt.
So this will be a kindof input to the next meeting.
André (16:33):
I wanted to ask two kind of unrelated questions.
So let me ask them at the sametime and then maybe one of you
can take one and the other cantake the other question.
The one is just to confirm thatthe the report writing is based
on existing literature, as faras I understand.
Right?
Eric (16:51):
Yeah.
André (16:52):
Okay.
So it's quite- perhaps a "yes"is all that's required
for that, but feelfree to elaborate, but, Yeah,
I think it's just maybeimportant for people to know
that the [empirical] researchis not done during the
compilation of the report.
It's drawing on existingliterature at which needs to
have been submitted by aparticular date somewhere
during the assessment process.
(17:12):
And then another question is,Toto, you mentioned earlier on
the SPM (the Summary forPolicymakers) and you also
mentioned that the documentitself is nearly 3000
pages long, and you jokinglysaid nobody will read that,
which is perhaps true.
But then whydoes the document exist?
You know, why have thatdocument if nobody's going to
(17:32):
read it or is it a case of theSPM provid[ing] links to the
documents that you can then goand search for additional
information in thefull document ?
Is that the idea?
Toto (17:41):
"Yes, so I first will answer on the SPM.
The SPM is kind of a synthesisof our working group report.
And in the summary, there [are]headline statement[s]
and bullet point[s].
Each of them [are] linkedto the report.
So for example,headline statement #1 - this
(18:01):
one links to Chapter 1,for example, on the framing
because the first part is theintroduction and framing.
So if you read this Summary forPolicymakers (for the
governments) and then they needto have more details, then it
[is] supported bya main report, basically.
André (18:18):
Okay.
Right.
Eric (18:19):
The answer to your question, Andre, about the
literature is that, yes,it's assessment of
the literature, and it'ssupposed to be a
systematic literature review.
So you're supposed to usethings like Scopus or other
search engines to do a keywordsearch and then determine what
are the sort of key themes,and then to organise it and
(18:41):
synthesise it in a waythat's once again,
"policy relevant".
Toto (18:45):
Probably the systematic review is - what I understand
from the process - is in partof [efforts] to avoid bias.
For example, like walking andcycling is actually
good for health.
This is the examplein my chapter.
But we have literature [that]also said like, it also
increases the risk of injury ortraffic accidents and also air
(19:07):
pollution- like,receive air pollution.
So we need to cover both in ourassessment - like, this is good
for health, but also[there are] risks.
But we also have "levelsof confidence", like, if most
of the literature says "A",you can have high confidence,
but if some literature says A,but other literature says B,
(19:29):
which is the opposite [of A],then we need to decrease the
confidence level of thisstatement, whether this
will be medium orlow in confidence.
And so that's basicallyhow we do the assessment
in this report.
Bob (19:42):
How are the the contributors to these working
groups selected?
Eric (19:46):
First, IPCC make up a call for submission of author -
to be authors for thisone - nominations in 2017.
And countries can nominate somepeople or organisations can
submit the nomination becauseit is open.
And then in total, the IPCCreceives about 800 applicants
(20:09):
for this position, and thenthey select based on
the composition, like inconsideration of developing
and developed countries,North and South, and also like
gender balance, etc.
And then in the [end] thenumber of spots is about 278
authors who areselected to participate to
(20:32):
develop this report.
But this[opportunity] is voluntary.
So you should remember thatworking in the
IPCC is voluntary.
You cannot getpaid from anywhere.
So for about 3,4 years, it is voluntary,
consuming- time-consuming but voluntary.
So it is not really attractivefor some people.
(20:53):
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's basically the basic idea.
Bob (20:57):
I can see why it could be important that is unpaid or
necessary that is unpaid.
But I wonder ifthat also inserts a bias
into the document.
If the only people who cancontribute to this paper are
people who can spend three orfour years of significant
(21:17):
unpaid time to contributeto the report, maybe that
eliminates a large group ofpeople from being able to
participate in this process.
Toto (21:26):
That's actually true.
I talked with an author frommy country, Indonesia, when the
national government was sendingnominations to organisations
within the country.
Some of them were hesitant todo because this is unpaid.
So you need to- have tospend a lot of energy for
(21:49):
this unpaid [work].
Why is it unpaid?
Because we need to havea neutral position.
As mentioned, we needto avoid bias.
Every year we sign[off that] we don't have
any specific interest.
That is tomake this process look neutral.
But actually, when we wediscuss in our chapter,
for example, authors also havesome preference like what needs
(22:13):
to be highlighted.
So this is some, some very gooddebate and discussion on which
[options] should be prioritisedor something like that.
Because we are talking withthe- Working Group III is
talking about like sensitiveissues on mitigation - very
sensitive for some countryor some region.
(22:36):
But we need to make it,as mentioned by Eric,
policy relevant.
"These are options." "Okay.
Well, this is sensitivefor you, but this is an option".
We can frankly say like that.
André (22:49):
And is there quite a strong effort made to ensure
representation- globalrepresentation and to balance
between developed anddeveloping countries?
Is that something that'sdiscus-ed in some detail in the
planning stages?
Toto (23:05):
Yeah.
They try it.
Like in my- for example,in my chapter, the coordinating
lead authors - we havetwo in the beginning: one from
Australia (male) andthe other one,
female from Brazil.
So they try to haveboth origin and also developing
and developed [countries].
And also gender balance.
(23:26):
And within the team members,we cover almost all five
continents (23:31):
one from America, one- two from Europe and
several from Asia,and also from Africa.
We have also from Africa.
Eric (23:45):
I think that's- One of the criteria in selecting the
author group isthe regional representation
and gender balance.
How that applies toany specific person,
it's difficult to judge, but interms of the assignment to the
different chapters,you definitely see an emphasis.
The coordinating lead authors,there's usually one from
developed and onefrom developing country.
(24:05):
And then within thegroup itself,
as Toto suggested, it's acrossmany different regions with a
pretty significant emphasison gender balance.
André (24:12):
Do you know if that's always been like that,
going right back to thebeginning of IPCC.
Has there always been thateffort to achieve balance or is
it something that's developeda long time, over time?
Eric (24:24):
I think, André, that it's become a growing
point of emphasis.
To be honest with you,I don't know for the
first assessment report,how that played out.
But I do recall maybe...
Toto, like at the very firstauthors' meeting in Edinburgh,
I think there was a picture ofthe diversity of the group and
some reflection on how thatdiversity has- or how it's
(24:45):
become more diverse over time.
That sort of sticks inthe back of my head.
André (24:49):
Okay.
Right.
Bob (24:50):
So maybe we can now kind of pivot into the actual
content of the report.
Maybe we start at a high level.
What is the main- I don't knowwhat makes sense, but the top
few points of thisreport that really stand out?
Toto (25:06):
Yeah, actually I mentioned it a little bit when
I explained about the Summaryfor Policymakers, becuse one of
the reasons in the earlyintroduction of the Summary of
Policymakers, they mentionabout three main points.
First is involving theglobal landscape,
like processes likethe UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement
(25:30):
and UN SustainableDevelopment Agenda, etc.
.
And then the second point (25:34):
they recognise about the importance
of the new emergingactors and approaches.
Emerging actors, wehave a more significant,
important role ofthe non-state actor, cities and
subnational government sector,citizens, local communities,
transnational activities andpublic private partnerships.
(25:57):
And the third one, as mentionedby Eric also in the beginning,
there is a more tendency of- acloser relationship between
climate mitigation, adaptationand sustainable development.
We need to go to that direction.
And so basically, [these are]the new things that we embedded
in this new assessment report.
I think.
Eric (26:17):
I'll also throw in a few sort of headline messages, too.
I mean, I think one of the bigheadline messages, right,
is that we're still not doingenough to really avoid climate
emergency in order to staywithin this 1.5 degree goal by
the end of this century.
The emissions of greenhousegases between 2010 and 2019
(26:41):
continued to rise.
The good news is, compared tothe previous decade,
2000 to 2009, they rose at alower rate, but they still
continued to increase.
And this places us on atrajectory that makes it very
difficult for us to achievethis 1.5 degree goal.
(27:02):
And this 1.5 degree goal isreally sort of a key threshold
for avoiding serious sealevel rise,
avoiding intensification ofstorms and, you know, many of
the socioeconomic losses thatwould be attendant with some
of those impacts.
So we're notdoing enough still, and the
(27:25):
emissions continue to rise,although at a lower rate.
And this is also true, if youlook at - I mentioned
previously -these Nationally Determined
Contributions (NDCs).
These are the pledges thatcountries are coming up with
for their emission reductionsbetween 2020 and 2030.
And the NDCs are stillnot ambitious enough.
Commitments that are madewithin the NDCs are still
(27:46):
not ambitious enough.
So those are some ofthe worrying headlines.
Some of the good newsis that, especially, when we
look at some of thekey mitigation technologies,
looking at renewable energy,solar energy, wind power and
then in the transport sector -Toto will probably elaborate
upon this too- electric vehicles,
the diffusion rate of thesetechnologies has increased
(28:08):
dramatically and the costs ofthese technologies have come
down dramatically as well,much greater than what was
anticipated in many projections.
I think this is, you know,a silver lining in terms of our
ability to achieve some ofthese high-level goals.
And so the pace oftechnological change, I think,
is greater than what wasanticipated for some of
(28:30):
the key technologies.
And there's policyreasons for that.
And I think, you know,for instance, the growing use
of feed-in tariffs throughoutthe world has contributed to
the spread of renewableenergies and the uptake
of renewable energy.
So I think that's anotherimportant high-level message.
Toto (28:49):
In this report, we are talking about not only from the
supply side but also fromdemand side, from the user side.
This is the first time for theIPCC Working Group III to put
demand as oneof the key [options
among] mitigation options.
The good point in the result ofthis assessment [is that] we
can say like we alwaysencourage people to
(29:10):
change their lifestyle,change their behaviour,
in relation to do betterefforts on climate mitigation.
And actually the pandemicsituation (COVID) shows that
dramatic change in behaviour-this can be done in a very
short term because likein the case of lockdown, etc.
(29:34):
, in many countries,behavioural change at a massive
scale in a shorttime is possible.
So this is the sort of messagefrom the chapter on demand.
It is possible.
We cannot say it is impossible.
It is possible to do dramaticchange on a massive scale.
Bob (29:52):
From what I heard from you about the headline messages,
would it be correct to say thatkind of the big actions that we
need to take are that we needto do more to mitigate our
greenhouse gas emissions, and weneed to be more
ambitious in the goalswe set towards that?
Eric (30:09):
We need to be more ambitious, and we need to
do things at a bigger scale -on a spatial scale - and we
need to do thingsquicker in general.
So there needsto be faster speed,
bigger spatial scale.
And there also- this gets tothe point of demand.
There also needs to be moreattention to the qualitative
aspects of howwe're doing things.
(30:30):
Speed, scale and the quality ofour mitigation efforts,
I think, need to change.
And on the quality sideof things, and this gets to
Toto's point about demand -it's not- I think,
in past reports,there's been an evolution.
But I think in past reports,you know, the emphasis was a
lot on technologies and how doyou build a- you know, for lack
of a better term- how do youbuild a better 'mousetrap' or
(30:52):
how do you builda better power plant?
Or, you know, there's stillsome emphasis in this report -
How do you take some of thecarbon dioxide and trap it
underneath the ground?
Of course, that's all fineand well, but if we want to
improve the quality of ourmitigation efforts, and I think
that will also accelerate thespeed and change the scale,
then we need to think about,how do we change consumer
(31:15):
demand for different productsand different activities and do
so in a way that they're also -to go back to another example
that Toto raised - that it'salso improving the quality of
people's lives?
So we need to think about howwe can walk from our house to
the grocery store.
And when we're at thegrocery store, we need to think
(31:35):
about the productsthat we're purchasing.
So maybe we buy locally growntomatoes so that they don't
have to be shippedfrom another place.
And maybe those tomatoes needto be grown in fertilisers that
don't lead to greenhouse gases.
So we need to think a lot abouthow our individual actions and
(31:55):
our individual mindsetsinfluence demand for different
products and services in a waythat meet not just
climate goals, butbroader sustainability goals.
And in doing that, then it getsto a question of how do you do
that quickly at scale?
And I think that's where youstart getting into the policy
environment andthe institutional environment.
How do we create that sort ofstructure that supports that
type of decision making?
André (32:17):
Eric, very generally speaking,
getting into the policyside of things.
Do you guys think that moreneeds to be done on the
incentive side or onthe regulation side,
especially looking atgovernments?
And I guess that's pre-emptingyour answer a little bit, but I
suspect that that will dependvery much on the
kind of government, right?
Because we have very differentkinds of government
(32:39):
around the world.
But let me leave it there.
Eric (32:41):
I think one of the themes that comes out of the report is
that there's a growing emphasison instrument mixes
or policy mixes.
Broadly, maybe 20 yearsago there, you know, there's a
lot of literature debating themerits of whether or not we
wanted to have a carbon tax orjust an absolute cap on
reductionsand regulatory standards.
(33:03):
But I think there's arealisation that especially to
move at scale, move quicker andachieve some of these
quality objectives, that in alot of contexts, you need to
combine government regulationwith some
market based incentives.
And then the third side of thattriangle is what I would call
sort ofinformation based instruments.
So awareness-raising or usingpeer pressure from public
(33:26):
on industry, using transparencytype mechanisms to motivate
industry to change.
A combination of those threethings in sort of a triangle,
I think, is sort ofwhat the option space is
looking like now.
And in different contexts,where you move on that triangle
and where you borrowfrom might vary.
So, you know, China might leanmore toward command-and-control
(33:48):
type of regulations.
But we also see, you know,their five year development
plans are combined now withemission trading schemes and
discussion of carbon taxes.
Even though China is sort ofmore top down, there's also
liberal use of some informationbased mechanisms
to awareness raising.
The context might determinewhere you're situated
(34:10):
on that triangle, butI think, overall, we're seeing
definitely a trend to sort ofthis policy mix approach.
And I think this leads toanother point is, that mix,
that policy mix - a lot ofthat's coming from literature
that's connected into this workon sustainability transitions.
And I think what we'rerealising now to once again
(34:32):
achieve these large scale,spatial scale,
quick, transformational typechanges of our systems, that we
need intervention atthree different levels, right?
So one of the other things thatyou see coming through from the
report is this literature onsustainability transitions that
also gets tied inwith this literature on
the instrument mixes.
(34:56):
One of the main approaches,sustainability transition is
what's called amultilevel perspective,
where they emphasise that thereneeds to be- in order for
big transformational changes,a lot of times, there needs to
be changes at whatthey call the landscape level.
So this can be like overarchingglobal markets or norms.
(35:17):
And a lot of times, things thathappen - big changes at the
landscape level happen due tobig exogenous shocks,
big external shocks like theDepression or what we've seen
recently with COVID-
André (35:27):
Pandemic, yeah.
Eric (35:28):
A pandemic.
Right?
So that changes the whole sortof way that the world views,
you know, how it operates,how markets operate.
And that creates a, you know,kind of, sort of a puncture
in the equilibrium.
It creates an opportunity,a window of opportunity to
change things at whatthey call the regime level.
And within the regime level,that's where you have your sort
(35:49):
of policy space andinstitutions and including
these different typesof regulatory mixes.
And so then, some of thepolicies and the mixes of
policies that come togethermight change and also the
institutionalarrangements might change.
So you mighthave now, for instance,
the transportation agency istalking more with the
(36:09):
environmental people about howwe create incentives for
teleworking because we havethis exogenous shock so
that...That space, the regimespace needs to change, too.
And then at the last level iswhat they call the niche, right?
And this iswhere innovation happens.
For instance, the developmentand the spread of lithium
(36:30):
batteries to support EVs.
This is a lot of times where,you know, people interact on an
individual or small group basiswith different technologies and
they begin to mushroom andgrow and cascade.
And you get opportunities fornot only innovation,
but imitation.
And so I think, you know,to achieve the 1.5
(36:50):
degree goals, a lot moreemphasis on the demand side,
a lot more emphasis on policymixes and a lot more emphasis
on aligning what happens across- this is, I know,
abstract terminology, but -this landscape level,
the regime level and andthe niche level.
Toto (37:10):
Okay.
In addition tothe economic instruments,
I think we have mentionedspecifically in the Summary for
Policymakers that selecteconomic instruments have been
effective in reducing emissions,complemented
by regulatory instruments.
So we can cannot select whichone is better than the other.
(37:32):
It's complementary.
That is better in mainly thenational and regional level,
and this is at ahigh confidence [level].
André (37:41):
This next question relates to the technological
side of things, and alsoa bit about- you mentioned
exogenous shocks, Eric.
I guess this has got a littlebit to do with both of those.
But I have heard and I don'tknow how correct this is,
but I've heard that the biggestgain that's been made in
reducing carbon emissions inthe last ten years has been the
switch to fracking ([hydraulicfracturing]) in the
(38:03):
US in particular.
So this is natural gas frackingto replace coal and oil and
particularly in the US, but Ithink elsewhere as well.
So this is verymuch not a renewable energy.
It's another fossil fuel,but it's about twice as clean
as oil and I think severaltimes cleaner than coal,
although I'm going beyondmy expertise here.
(38:24):
But, so I mean, I guessI don't know what the question
is here.
I'm just curious what you thinkabout that, the fact that you
the biggest success that'shappened recently, if I'm
correct in my understanding,is something that has nothing
to do with renewable energy.
Yeah.
Let me just leave itthere and see what you think.
Eric (38:42):
I would need to check my facts and data to
confirm that, but that soundsabout right to me, André, and I
think it highlightsa few things.
I mean, I think,in some ways, it does
suggest that sometimes,looking at it from a sort of
a positive light.
Right?
And I think this issomething that, you know,
I remember, actually, I tookfrom your presentation,
André, from ISAP (InternationalForum on Sustainable Asia
and the Pacific).
Right?
(39:02):
Sometimes, sort of smallincremental changes can also
lead to transformative changes.
So if we think of fracking andthe use of natural gas as sort
of incremental or bridgetechnology that might open the
door for a transition torenewables and even
cleaner energy sources,in that way, it would be a sort
of positive way oflooking at it.
(39:24):
And it does, in some ways,suggest the potential for
small-scale technologicalchange to open opportunities
for bigger changes.
Although this is,in some ways, suboptimal.
And one of the side effectsalso of fracking is the leak
of methane, which is also agrowing and really powerful
greenhouse gas and alsocontributes to air pollution.
(39:47):
I guess I would give sort of asplit assessment here, as I
think it does suggest the powerof industry and government to
work together to lead to bigtransformative changes,
potentially.
But the impacts of thosetransformative changes - given
the seriousness of the climatechange problem - are perhaps a
little bit worrying.
Having said that, I think theother thing that we have seen,
(40:10):
for instance, with the renewableenergy revolution is, as I
mentioned at the outset,that the pace of
change has gone beyondwhat was anticipated.
And even in the US, we've seena transformation of local
energy systems and whatnot.
So what I would like to seehappen over the next five years
is that same quote that yougave is that renewable energy
(40:32):
is the biggest reduction.
And I think that's possible.
I do think that's possible.
So maybe it's the same type oflogic and model that led to the
sort of fracking revolution,but applied more towards other
technologies and socio-technological change could be
that sort of headline quote.
I look forward to writing thatarticle with you in five years.
Bob (40:54):
A little sidebar on fracking,
though (40:56):
I've also heard terrible reports about fracking
making local groundwaterflammable by the gas getting
into the water and things.
So I think there needs to besome consideration of the local
environment with these things.
I don't know if that'sa question, but yeah.
Eric (41:12):
Yes.
But if you look at the Summaryfor Policymakers and then if
you look across theentire report, there is a very
strong emphasis on analysingthe possible synergies and
possible tradeoffs betweenclimate change and different
development concerns.
In the case that Bob raised,water pollution obviously is
(41:36):
and clean water is obviouslya big concern.
And so I think one of the othermessages and one of the things
that comes out of the report is- and this also gets back to
the point raised by André - iswhen we set up this sort of
collection ofdifferent instruments, we also
need to consider how thoseinstruments can reduce or
(41:59):
optimise some of the trade-offsand make sure that we're not
producing more methane,we're not producing
more water pollution.
And that's going to require,you know, collection a suite of
different options a lot oftimes, to make sure that
our water sources are strongerand our climate
policies are stronger.
Bob (42:19):
We hear about what we can do on the individual level or
in our local communities.
But you also hear that nothingthat we can do at the
individual level is going tomake a significant impact.
And any significant change todeal with mitigating the issues
of climate change is going tohave to be at a large scale
with governmental action andlarge industry action.
(42:40):
What's your sense on where- andhow do I phrase this?
Where does thebalance fall on that?
Is there something that we cando at an individual level that
has a significant impact?
Eric (42:51):
I'm going to suggest three things.
Two of them are sortof more on a personal,
individual level, but I thinkcan lead to bigger changes.
And then one is more in gettingback to sort of the research
side on the individual level.
I think one of the mostimportant things is we need to
teach students more aboutwhat's happening with climate
change and what's happeningin this report.
(43:13):
From my perspective,there's still far too limited
offerings in terms of courseson climate science and
especially climate policy andsustainable development,
and how those linkages workwith each other.
And if this is going to be,you know, a generation-defining
issue and problem, we mightneed universities to have
(43:34):
climate scienceand policy departments,
rather than sort ofbeing sort of nested
within different disciplines.
And within IGES, we're startingto work with Kyushu University
and we've done online trainingsall over the place.
So I think this teaching aspect- and it's not just teaching
and awareness raising, but alsoempowering individuals to be
(43:56):
like the next - Toto might havea better sense of this - but,
you know, the Indonesianversion of Greta Thunberg.
We need those type of youngpeople that have this knowledge
and can inform policy and getelected into office or
become business leaders.
And I think, as researchers,we need to be better and more
targeted in how we do that.
So that's one thing.
(44:17):
And then the second thing is Ithink we need to have more
discussions with people thatdon't necessarily believe
what's in this report.
At IGES and I think a lot ofthe research institutes we
work with, we have a tendencyto preach to the choir.
But I think if we can convertpeople that are not so aware of
these issues and also might beinclined to be more
skeptical about them, then Ithink that opens pathways for a
(44:40):
really big transformation.
So education and speakingto the unconverted.
And then on the research side,one of the things I think that
we need to do more of - andthis is also featured in the
report a little bit, to acertain extent - is better
incorporation of the socialscience research into
especially the technical andthe modelling research.
(45:02):
So there's more and morediscussion in this report of
what we call feasibility.
And a lot of times,this idea of feasibility,
when it's done in amodelling context, is about the
technical or the economicfeasibility of
reducing greenhouse gases.
And so when people buildthe models, they see whether or
not there's enough technologythat's available and whether or
(45:25):
not it's affordable enough indifferent countries to be
deployed at a large scale.
And of course, that's important.
But what we're recognising nowis this sort of social
feasibility and the politicaland institutional feasibility
of a lot of mitigation optionsis pretty low.
And the feasibility or thebarriers in these areas are
(45:46):
just as high as the technicaland the economic barriers.
And so one way I think,to motivate policymakers is to
- to go backto Toto's terminology -
the enabling environment,to create this enabling
environment or to use powerfulregulatory mixes is to show
them that when we incorporatethese things into our models,
this is the type ofthing that can unlock some of
(46:08):
the mitigation potential.
This might be the reason whywe've been doing this
integrated assessment modellingfor about 30 years.
But increasingly, we always seein the other report as- we
still have these ambition gapsor these implementation gaps.
And I think part of the reasonis social science researchers
do not have asa prominent place in
(46:29):
the modelling community.
So if we can, in ourmodelling framework, show that
increasing capacity in some ofthese areas is one of the keys
to moving forward, I think thatwill also help bring about
bigger andmore transformative changes.
Bob (46:43):
With that, I think I'd like to wrap up by asking for
your final thoughts on theprocess or the
report in general.
Eric (46:52):
Well, I think just maybe two final thoughts.
One is I think that one of thekey insights from this report
is climate change and solvingthe climate change problem is
less and less about justthinking about climate change,
but thinking about developmentand how we do development.
And so you see some emphasis onshifting development pathways.
(47:16):
And I think that's the sort ofVenn diagram here is that we
have this big circleof development, right?
And then within that circle,there is a sustainable
development and there's ways torespond to the
climate change problem,you know, sort of a smaller
circle that are sustainable andthere's others that are
(47:36):
not so sustainable.
And I think we're becoming moreattuned to what that balance
looks like and how tolean more into the sustainable
development pathway in a waythat will shift the way
we do development.
And I think that's somethingthat runs through all of the
chapters in the report,at least the ones
that I've read.
(47:57):
I have to be honest,I haven't read all 3000 pages
of the report.
And then the second thing is,I would suggest is for
me personally, not always,but most of the time, this was
one of the most nourishing andfulfilling experiences I've had
as a researcher, becauseto go back to this
multilevel perspective, one ofthe things that we're doing
(48:19):
with this report is changingthe sort of normative space,
the way that we look at theworld and, you know, where we
situate our space in the worldand changing that sort of norm-
this normative andideational space, I think would
be something that, you know,100 years from now - hopefully
the planet still exists in goodshape - you know, people will
(48:43):
look back on and say that thisis something that a bunch of
individuals came together to doin a way that really led to a
better world for futuregenerations and not
only people, but theplanet more generally.
And to contribute to that isreally sort of something that's
been quite an honour.
Bob (49:04):
Thank you for listening to about sustainability.
Please subscribe atpodcast.iges.jp or search
for About Sustainability...
Wherever you normallyget your podcasts.
If you've got feedback, you canreview us on your podcast
directory of choice or reachout on Twitter @IGES_EN.
(49:27):
About Sustainability...
is produced by the Institute forGlobal Environmental Strategies.
Any views expressed during thepodcast are those of the
speaker at the time ofrecording and do not
necessarily reflect theviews of IGES.
Thank you for choosing to spendyour time with us.
We don't take that lightly,and we hope you'll join
us next time.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.