Inside the IPCC whale

Two dissenting voices on the process of producing the political statement on climate change policy.

Dr Robert Stavins

Over the past 5 years, I have dedicated an immense amount of time and effort to serving as the Co-Coordinating Lead Author (CLA) of Chapter 13, “International Cooperation: Agreements and Instruments,” of Working Group III (Mitigation) of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has been an intense and exceptionally time-consuming process, which recently culminated in a grueling week spent in Berlin, Germany, April 5-13, 2014, at the government approval sessions, in which some 195 country delegations discussed, revised, and ultimately approved (line-by-line) the “Summary for Policymakers” (SPM), which condenses more than 2,000 pages of text from 15 chapters into an SPM document of 33 pages. Several of the CLAs present with me in Berlin commented that given the nature and outcome of the week, the resulting document should probably be called the Summary by Policymakers, rather than the Summary for Policymakers.

Don’t miss the full text of the letter that he wrote to clear the air. Note that the large volume of scientific reports (which journalists and politicians do not read) is not a target of his attack. Matt Ridley reported years ago that when you read the full text of the scientific reports, it seems that mild warming will do more good than harm.

Another caveat is that none of the problems I describe in this letter apply to either the Technical Summary nor the underlying Chapter 13. Indeed, because of the problems with Section SPM.5.2 on international cooperation in the SPM, it is important that interested parties refer instead to the Technical Summary, or better yet, the original Chapter 13.

In this letter, I will not comment on the government review and revision process that affected other parts of the SPM, other than to note that as the week progressed, I was surprised by the degree to which governments felt free to recommend and sometimes insist on detailed changes to the SPM text on purely political, as opposed to scientific bases.

Dr Richard Toll

I have been involved with the IPCC since 1994, fulfilling a variety of roles in all three working groups. After the debacle of AR4 – where the Himalayan glacier melt really was the least of the errors – I had criticized the IPCC for faulty quality control. Noblesse oblige – I am the 20th most-cited climate scholar in the world – so I volunteered for AR5.

The Irish government put my name forward only to withdraw its financial commitment when I was indeed elected. The necessary funding could have easily been freed up if the Irish delegation to the international climate negotiations and the IPCC would trim its luxurious travel arrangements.

As a Convening Lead Author of one of the chapters, I was automatically on the team to draft the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). AR5 is a literature review of 2,600 pages long. It assesses a large body of scholarly publication. In some places, the chapters are so condensed that there are a few words per article in the learned literature. The SPM then distills the key messages into 44 pages – but everyone knows that policy and media will only pick up a few sentences. This leads to a contest between chapters – my impact is worst, so I will get the headlines.

In the earlier drafts of the SPM, there was a key message that was new, snappy and relevant: Many of the more worrying impacts of climate change really are symptoms of mismanagement and underdevelopment.

The SPM, drafted by the scholars of the IPCC, is rewritten by delegates of the governments of the world, in this case in a week-long session in Yokohama. Some of these delegates are scholars, others are not. The Irish delegate, for instance, thinks that unmitigated climate change would put us on a highway to hell, referring, I believe, to an AC/DC song rather than a learned paper.

Other delegations have a political agenda too. The international climate negotiations of 2013 in Warsaw concluded that poor countries might be entitled to compensation for the impacts of climate change. It stands to reason that the IPCC would be asked to assess the size of those impacts and hence the compensation package. This led to an undignified bidding war among delegations – my country is more vulnerable than yours – that descended into farce when landlocked countries vigorously protested that they too would suffer from sea level rise.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Inside the IPCC whale

  1. stackja

    The climate change has changed to no change, from the billions wasted.

  2. manalive

    This led to an undignified bidding war among delegations – my country is more vulnerable than yours – that descended into farce when landlocked countries vigorously protested that they too would suffer from sea level rise …

    LOL, reminiscent of … I’m Brian, and so is my wife! …

  3. Anne

    OMG….more evidence of the urgent need for the separation of State and Science!

  4. jupes

    No no no. We need to DO SOMETHING.

    A lazy $3 Billion on ‘Direct Action’ to will surely do the trick.

    You know it makes sense.

  5. Andrew

    landlocked countries vigorously protested that they too would suffer from sea level rise …

    Didn’t Sarah Hyphen Seapatrol tell us that the refugees were fleeing climate change? Never pictured Afghanistan as particularly vulnerable, being landlocked, mountainous and getting down to -25C. But apparently that problem is resolved now – hasn’t warmed this century so I guess they finally stopped fretting and decided to stay home. Haven’t seen one for 4 months – all those push factors must be fixed.

  6. egg_

    more evidence of the urgent need for the separation of State and Science!

    Yup, he who pays the piper…

  7. Aynsley Kellow

    I had a similar experience with the IPCC seven years ago as a reviewer: here I wasn’t invited back for some reason.

  8. I am the Walrus, koo koo k'choo

    Who’da thunk it, eh??

    Remind me, how many billions does the Abbott Socialist Republic intend to throw at ‘solving’ this ‘problem’?

  9. Baldrick

    Remind me, how many billions does the Abbott Socialist Republic intend to throw at ‘solving’ this ‘problem’?

    How does $2,550,000,000 over four years sound? Or to put it another way … $1,750,000 every day for four years.
    What a waste!

  10. Andrew

    Can we at least see the details first? There’s a remote possibility that they will either:
    a) spent it well or
    b) spent nothing and simply call some preexisting Ag project “Direct Action”

    I still haven’t given up on a coinvestment in USC coal power and Milne’s subsequent suicide (along with 500,000 Green voters when they read “Abbott master stroke cuts megatons of emissions”).

  11. I am the Walrus, koo koo k'choo

    Thanks Baldrick.

    What a complete and utter waste of scarce money.

  12. Frederic

    Can we at least see the details first? There’s a remote possibility that they will either:
    a) spent it well or

    Yep that’s my income, paid into the deficit fund, being spent “well” on climate change amelioration. Given that if everyone in this country ripped off their clothes, moved into caves and even banned the use of fire, the effects on world climate would still be undetectable, I cannot understand what you mean by “well”.

  13. Tel

    Yup, he who pays the piper…

    I can only imagine that is the deeper purpose of the A666 direct action plan… buying pipers.

  14. Hugh

    the resulting document should probably be called the Summary by Policymakers, rather than the Summary for Policymakers.

    Wow, didn’t realize how broad was the Cat’s reach! Gimme a fiver :-) :

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/04/14/ipcc-warming-cost-are-small-and-less-than-costs-of-forcing-carbon-abatement/comment-page-1/#comment-1265798

Comments are closed.