This tension was evident at the three sessions that preceded the approval of the sixth assessment report. Developing countries expressed anger at developed countries for not doing enough, despite their historical responsibility for climate change – and despite their promises to provide financing and technology transfers to facilitate adaptation efforts. Meanwhile, the language referring to fossil-fuel reduction, renewable-energy cost-efficiency, and equitable renewable-energy ownership was weakened, reflecting advocacy by those seeking to maintain fossil-fuel extraction.

As a result of insufficient global political will, the summary emphasizes net-zero terminology over the need for a rapid and real reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions. This could lead less-informed policymakers to conclude that we can just magically plant trees and carry on as we have so far. Moreover, geoengineering solutions such as carbon dioxide removal and carbon capture and storage (CCS) have been given more space than renewable energies, despite research showing that deploying these technologies carries enormous environmental risks. In addition, compared to rapid renewable-energy transitions, CCS maintains fossil-fuel dependence, is more expensive, not available to scale, and less effective in reducing emissions. While the summary mentions some of these risks, it buries them in a footnote.

The IPCC’s reports remain an indispensable resource for informing people about the impact of climate change. But readers seeking a clear assessment of the current efforts to reduce global emissions and ensure that we cap global warming at 1.5°C should skip the summary and read the full report instead.

Lindsey Fielder Cook is Representative for the Human Impacts of Climate Change at the Quaker United Nations Office in Geneva.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2023.

www.project-syndicate.org