The new IPCC report came out Monday. It is not just “another report.” It makes it clear what a small window we have to stop using fossil fuels: ”Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all (very high confidence).”

We wanted to give you short and a long summary that will provide you information for talking with your family, friends, neighbors and political leaders. What will it take for us to actually mobilize as a society?

For more detail: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/frequently-asked-questions

350 Humboldt Steering Committee

ERIC ROSTON: CLIMATE REPORT

With attention fixed on the war raging in Ukraine just days after an invasion by Russia, there’s a greater-than-normal risk that the latest report from the coalition of top scientists on the UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will go overlooked. Which is, in a way, something that the hundreds of authors worried about in compiling this 3,500-page report: Among the worst-case scenarios analyzed for future warming is a world where “a resurgent nationalism, concerns about competitiveness and security, and regional conflicts” make global collaboration nearly impossible.

Released today, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability focuses on the interplay that connects warming-driven impacts such as heat waves and floods to ecosystems and human society. The IPCC scientists determine that some impacts are already “irreversible” and that as many as 3.6 billion people now live in settings that are “highly vulnerable to climate change.”

The report characterizes adaptation measures so far as halting and insufficient and makes the consequences of inaction wrenchingly clear. The world isn’t reducing greenhouse-gas emissions fast enough, which makes adapting to climate change more critical and also more difficult. Nations are moving too slowly to learn to live with destructive effects, leading to human hardship — not just in the future, but visible right now.

Here are five key arguments from the latest IPCC report on climate adaptation, or how humanity learns to live with warming temperatures:

1. There’s no more waiting for climate change

Climate-related impacts are already “widespread” and, in some cases, “irreversible,” according to the IPCC. Heat-related human mortality has risen. Extreme weather events and temperatures have exposed millions of people to food insecurity and malnutrition. Agriculture, tourism and other climate-sensitive sectors are seeing losses. Fisheries are in decline in some regions. Migration tied to climate shifts is rising.

The previous version of this report, from 2014, spent a lot of ink on projected impacts; the new report noticeably devotes pages and pages to events that have already occurred. “The whole idea that this is a distant issue in space or time or relevance? [The new IPCC] report shoots that right down,” said Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist at the Nature Conservancy. “It says: It is right here, wherever you live. It is right now, not in the future, and it is affecting every aspect of our lives.”

2. ‘It is now adapt or die’

Rich countries that are most responsible for carbon-dioxide pollution have the most resources to prepare for its effects, whether or not they choose to do so. Poorer countries with little to no responsibility for climate change face the brunt of the assault — and aren’t receiving promised help from the developed world. The divide also holds within countries; low-income and marginalized communities in prosperous nations are far more vulnerable than their immediate neighbors.

“It may sound hyperbolic to you but my take is that for many vulnerable countries, it is now adapt or die,” said Patrick Verkooijen, chief executive officer of the Netherlands-based Center on Global Adaptation. “The time for large-scale investments in adaptation is absolutely now. Rich countries can no longer leave the most vulnerable nations out to dry.”

3. The clock is ticking

Scientists have a word that describes what happens if nations miss their pollution limits and the world heats up past 1.5°C: “overshoot.” Implicit in this idea is that by using nature or technology to draw down greenhouse-gas levels, people can return the temperature back below the limit. The new IPCC report warns that even if nations are able to do that — a big if — there will still be “additional severe risks,” some of which are “irreversible” compared to scenarios without overshoot. Up to 14% of land-based animal species are at risk of extinction once the 1.5°C threshold is passed, the IPCC warned.

This fact informs the physical limitation to climate adaptation and shapes the IPCC’s guidance to reduce emissions as quickly as possible. Cuts today are much more valuable than the same cuts in five or 10 years.

4. What’s needed beyond cutting emissions

For emissions cuts, the task is clear. The world needs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero by midcentury and halve 2010 levels by 2030, the IPCC reported in 2018. But since some further warming is unavoidable, nations’ preparedness matters — a lot. Effective adaptation measures are critical. The problem is that efforts so far tend to be fragmented and short-term, according to the IPCC. Plus, adaptation efforts are often underfunded. And as warming increases, their effectiveness will go down.

What might the world look like after 2°C of warming above pre-industrial levels? “That question can’t be answered unless you also tell me, well, what are we assuming about the condition of society?” said Brian O’Neill, director of the Joint Global Change Research Institute in Maryland and a chief author of the report’s chapter on future risks.

5. Not enough is being done

The rate of global emissions growth had plateaued in the years before the pandemic, and inexpensive renewable power makes it possible to sharply curtail emissions. But atmospheric CO₂ is not falling yet and, as the report makes clear, societies are not pursuing anything resembling the far-reaching changes they will need to in order to protect themselves.

“Every fraction of a degree matters when it comes to impacts of climate change,” said Stephanie Roe, global lead scientist for climate and energy at the environmental nonprofit WWF. “So we can still reduce the effects or the impacts by effectively deploying adaptation measures.”

Second report: From the Center for International Environmental Law

Beyond the Limits

New IPCC Working Group II Report Highlights How Gambling on Overshoot is Pushing the Planet Past a Point of No Return February 28, 2022

The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report) confirms that climate change is already causing severe and permanent loss and damage to human and natural systems, that exceeding 1.5°C warming–even temporarily– would result in further irreversible harm, and that strategies premised on the possibility of returning from such overshoot through the use of solar radiation modification (SRM) or technological carbon dioxide removal (CDR) court grave danger.

The following analysis examines the WG II report in this context and with specific attention to its findings and significance for: overshoot scenarios, technologies and approaches common to those scenarios, and the implications of climate change and responses to it for human rights, Indigenous Peoples’ rights, and social justice. It highlights three critical messages and themes that emerge from the WG II report:

1)  Even temporary overshoot of 1.5°C is exceptionally dangerous and would result in adverse impacts irreversible on time-scales from centuries to millennia, or in the case of species extinctions, simply irreversible;

2)  Approaches that deploy unproven technologies to reverse or mask overshoot may prove ineffective and risk further disaster;

3)  Climate responses, including adaptation, must integrate social justice and equity and center Indigenous and local knowledge.

Some of Working Group II’s most sobering findings were diluted or deleted from the final Summary for Policymakers approved by State Parties. But Parties cannot negotiate away the science.

[The following points have been edited by removing the section citations and in some cases some of the illustrating material. The full report is at https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/CIEL_HBF_IPCC-WGII-Key-Messages-28Feb2022.pdf ]

I. Exceeding 1.5°C will lead to irreversible impacts.

Overshoot poses grave dangers. The IPCC warns that exceeding 1.5°C warming will result in severe and irreversible adverse impacts, limiting the capacity for adaptation and severely threatening human rights. The permanent impacts of overshoot on human and natural systems would include, for example, sea level rise, inundation of small islands and other coastal areas, loss of large ice masses, loss of certain marine and coastal ecosystems and associated livelihoods and food security, and loss of human lives due to heat. Coral reefs and kelp forests, which are at “high risk” this century, will suffer irreversible impacts beyond 1.5°C. “Threats to species and ecosystems in oceans, coastal regions, and on land, particularly in biodiversity hotspots, present a global risk that will increase with every additional tenth of a degree of warming (high confidence).”

Going beyond 1.5 degree C, also increases the chances of triggering climate “tipping points” and self-reinforcing feedback loops, such as permafrost thawing and forest ecosystem collapse, which would greatly amplify warming and associated adverse impacts, and make “return to a given global warming level or below … more challenging.” and efficiency of the biological carbon pump (medium confidence).”

Even if temperatures could be returned to below 1.5°C following overshoot—and there is no certainty that they can—some impacts and losses will be permanent. Regardless of whether temperatures could subsequently decline, some impacts that occur during overshoot cannot be undone but would continue for centuries to millennia, like sea level rise threatening the existence of Small Island States and low-lying coastal areas, and the millions of people.

The modeled pathways presented in prior IPCC reports, including the Special Report on 1.5°C, must be read in this context. Pursuing any of the scenarios that assume overshoot of 1.5°C, even if only temporarily, entails the knowing and willful acceptance of these irreversible impacts. Compared to pathways that never exceed 1.5°C, those that involve even temporary overshoot, in which warming exceeds 1.5°C for several decades and then returns to or below 1.5°C, “imply severe risks and irreversible impacts in many ecosystems (high confidence).”

Moreover, overshoot thwarts adaptation. The warmer it gets, the harder it becomes to adapt to a warming world. Every fraction of a degree makes matters worse, and adaptation becomes more difficult if temperature rise exceeds 1.5°C.

Cumulative stressors contribute to irreversible damage. The IPCC warns of the complex, compound, and cascading risks resulting from climate hazards. “Irreversible changes will occur from the interaction of stressors and the occurrence of extreme events (very high confidence), such as the expansion of arid systems or total loss of stony coral and sea ice communities.”

These impacts threaten human rights. During periods of overshoot, “[r]isks to human systems will increase, including those to infrastructure, low-lying coastal settlements, some ecosystem- based adaptation measures, and associated livelihoods (high confidence), cultural and spiritual values (medium confidence).” The irreversible human and ecological impacts of warming above 1.5°C include excess deaths from heat waves, glacier melt, and loss of coral reefs, small islands, and cultural heritage. “Unavoidable sea level rise will bring cascading and compounding impacts resulting in losses of coastal ecosystems and ecosystem services, groundwater salinisation, flooding and damages to coastal infrastructure that cascade into risks to livelihoods, settlements, health, well- being, food and water security, and cultural values in the near to long-term (high confidence).” Ecosystem degradation puts rights at risk: “The transformation of terrestrial and ocean/coastal ecosystems and loss of biodiversity, exacerbated by pollution, habitat fragmentation and land-use changes, will threaten livelihoods and food security (high confidence).”

Current impacts of climate change are already eroding resilience and adaptation capacity, causing irreversible harm. “The rise in weather and climate extremes has led to some irreversible impacts as natural and human systems are pushed beyond their ability to adapt.” The capacity for adaptation is already constrained for many places on Earth, with adaptation limits reached and at times even exceeded. “Beginning at 1.5C, autonomous and evolutionary adaptation responses by terrestrial and aquatic species and ecosystems face hard limits, resulting in biodiversity decline, species extinction and loss of related livelihoods (high confidence).”

Loss and damage is occurring now and will occur, affecting vulnerable human and natural systems most, and often with irreversible consequences. Adaptation is not always possible, “does not prevent all losses and damages,” and “cannot prevent all risks to biodiversity and ecosystem services (high confidence).

Avoiding or mitigating irreversible impacts associated with overshoot requires urgent and substantial emissions cuts. “Deep cuts in emissions will be necessary to minimize irreversible loss and damage (high confidence).” “Without urgent and ambitious emissions reductions, more terrestrial, marine and freshwater species and ecosystems face conditions that approach or exceed the limits of their historical experience (very high confidence).” As illustrated in past IPCC reports, such rapid reductions require accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels, through rapid and virtually complete phase out of the use of oil, gas, and coal. At present rates of emissions, warming is likely to surpass 1.5°C around 2035. Now is the time to act to avoid the irreversible harm that would ensue from such a temperature rise.

II. Strategies that assume overshoot and presume the ability to return to 1.5°C or below through the use of risky and unproven technologies, like Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), court disaster.

If irreversible losses are to be avoided, relying on the future deployment of unproven and potentially dangerous approaches like CDR, SRM, or other geoengineering technologies is not an option.

The climate effect of carbon dioxide removal at scale remains unknown and is not equivalent to the climate effect of avoiding the same quantity of carbon dioxide emissions.

On top of the uncertainties surrounding the effectiveness of CDR at reducing temperature rise, Working Group II highlights the risk of severe unintended consequences. Proposed methods of carbon dioxide removal such as afforestation or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) could compromise ecosystem health and food and water security, for example. “Risks arise from some responses that are intended to reduce the risks of climate change, including risks from maladaptation and adverse side effects of some emission reduction and carbon dioxide removal measures (high confidence). Deployment of afforestation of naturally unforested land, or poorly implemented bioenergy, with or without carbon capture and storage, can compound climate-related risks to biodiversity, water and food security, and livelihoods, especially if implemented at large scales, especially in regions with insecure land tenure (high confidence).“ The wide-ranging side effects of CDR on biogeochemical cycles and climate could weaken its carbon sequestration and cooling potential, and “deployment of CDR, particularly on land, can also affect water quality and quantity, food production and biodiversity (high confidence).”

The Working Group II report also sounds the alarm about the risks of deploying SRM as a response to the climate emergency–both because it has no impact on the emissions causing warming, and because there is high confidence that it would endanger human and natural systems. SRM refers to approaches and associated technologies intended to mask the warming impact of GHG emissions by reducing the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. As the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers notes: “Solar radiation modification approaches, if they were to be implemented, introduce a widespread range of new risks to people and ecosystems, which are not well understood (high confidence). Solar radiation modification approaches have potential to offset warming and ameliorate some climate hazards, but substantial residual climate change or overcompensating change would occur at regional scales and seasonal timescales (high confidence). Large uncertainties and knowledge gaps are associated with the potential of solar radiation modification approaches to reduce climate change risks. Solar radiation modification would not stop atmospheric CO2 concentrations from increasing or reduce resulting ocean acidification under continued anthropogenic emissions (high confidence).” Fundamentally, SRM fails to address the underlying driver of climate change–GHGs–and therefore is no substitute for measures that prevent emissions or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. In contrast to climate mitigation activities, SRM “introduces a ‘mask’ to the climate change problem by altering the Earth’s radiation budget, rather than attempting to address the root cause of the problem, which is the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere.”

Data gaps remain regarding purported climate impacts of SRM and insufficient attention has been paid to the severe human and ecological risks posed by the technology.

The studies presented by Working Group II further erode scientific and political defensibility of planning for overshoot and purported technological return. In reiterating and amplifying its previous findings about the foreseeable risks posed by reliance on CDR and SRM, the IPCC elucidates the recklessness of such strategies.

III. Climate responses, including adaptation, must integrate social justice and equity, and center Indigenous and local knowledge

For the first time, the IPCC’s Working Group II report includes a pronounced focus on the importance of addressing social inequities in climate vulnerabilities and responses. The IPCC affirms that centering climate justice, and incorporating Indigenous rights and knowledge, in climate responses is both imperative and effective. The Summary for Policymakers acknowledges that climate justice “links development and human rights to achieve a rights-based approach to addressing climate change.” “Gender-sensitive, equity and justice-based adaptation approaches, integration of Indigenous knowledge systems within legal frameworks, and promotion of Indigenous land tenure rights,” the report finds, “reduce vulnerability and increase resilience (high confidence).” [WGII TS.E.2.4 at TS-81]

Climate breakdown magnifies existing social inequities. The IPCC recognizes that vulnerability to climate change is driven by “patterns of intersecting socio-economic development, unsustainable ocean and land use, inequity, marginalization, historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as colonialism, and governance (high confidence).” Those with the fewest resources (impoverished peoples) and historically marginalized and oppressed groups are especially vulnerable to climate damages, including the irreversible harm caused by overshoot. This vicious circle exacerbates climate injustice–the concept that the people who contributed least to the problem suffer its worst consequences.

Adaptation is especially limited for the most vulnerable groups, who are disproportionately exposed to climate impacts.

The IPCC emphasizes the need to center justice from the start in climate action and ensure participatory planning and decision-making involving vulnerable communities throughout design and implementation. This finding assumes particular importance in light of the disproportionate risks of SRM and CDR technologies for Indigenous Peoples and communities in the Global South.

Indigenous knowledge must be recognized and can strengthen adaptation and resilience. Supporting indigenous self-determination, recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ rights, and supporting Indigenous knowledge-based adaptation can accelerate effective robust climate resilient development pathways (very high confidence).” [

IV. Conclusion

The WGII report’s message is clear: Climate impacts are already harming people and ecosystems, with the most vulnerable communities disproportionately exposed to the most severe effects; both mitigation efforts and adaptive responses must center social justice, build ecological resilience, and respect Indigenous rights and knowledge. Adaptation, however, has its limits and becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, when temperature rise exceeds 1.5°C. Overshooting the 1.5 mark, even temporarily, results in irreversible damage to many ecosystems and severely threatens human lives and human rights. Pathways that assume overshoot and the ability to return, relying on large-scale, unproven carbon removal technologies or high-risk geoengineering gambles like SRM, could unleash irreparable harm. Avoiding and minimizing such permanent impacts requires immediate, deep emissions cuts, including through rapid phaseout of fossil fuel production and combustion. Near-term action is crucial. As the IPCC warns, ”[a]ny further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all (very high confidence).”