To change course, we must address the root cause of climate change: “unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals.” Governments could choose many feasible and cost-effective steps to reduce emissions. The most promising are those that integrate rights-based approaches that embody meaningful public participation in decision-making, gender equity, biodiversity protection, human rights, and the rights of indigenous peoples. The IPCC report finds that policies that promote equity, fairness, and climate justice “lead to more sustainable outcomes” and “reduce trade-offs, support transformative change, and advance climate-resilient development.” Simply put, fairer climate policies receive greater support and are therefore more effective.

The most effective way to reduce emissions is to phase out fossil fuels and rapidly shift to renewable energies, particularly solar and wind energy. But the report also identifies important economy-wide and demand-side measures, such as “sufficiency” approaches, circular material flows, energy efficiency, sustainable consumption and production, widespread public transportation, and agricultural practices grounded in “sustainable land-management approaches.”

Behavioral changes, such as adopting a “sustainable healthy diet,” reducing the use of appliances, and forgoing private cars in favor of walking and cycling, could also help reduce emissions. As the IPCC report notes, the top 10% of households with the highest per capita emissions account for 34-45% of consumption-based global household emissions, whereas the bottom 50% contribute just 13-15%.

Curiously, despite the documented environmental benefits of reducing meat consumption in favor of healthier diets, both the summary and the full report include no mention of meat or dairy and relegate the phrase “plant-based” to a footnote.

Likewise, the report dropped a hopeful and high-confidence sentence relating to urgent, rapid, feasible, and equitable near-term policies to address climate change and improve human well-being that are already available to scale. This caused an outcry among many observers and a range of states seeking to retain the scientific finding. However, after hours of discussion, the sentence remained out; the words “urgent,” “rapid,” and “available to scale” appeared too sensitive for universal approval, highlighting the tension between science and political will.

(Continued in Support post…)