Over-reliance on carbon capture and storage technology could lead the world to climate tipping points, the head of the world's climate science office has warned. Hoesung Lee, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the use of technologies that capture or remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was "no free lunch" and that countries should be careful. Lee noted that the IPCC found it likely that the global temperature could rise by more than 1.5°C from pre-industrial levels, but then return to below 1.5°C by the end of the century. "The jargon for that is overshooting," he said. “Methods to remove carbon dioxide will be in high demand if this exceedance actually occurs.” (Fiona Harvey)

"by clicking on the title of the article, you will be redirected to the entire article"

IPCC stated that the world must remove 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2050 to avoid a climate cataclysm. And yes, there are multiple methods of carbon removal today, such as planting more trees (afforestation), sequestering CO ₂ from the sky (direct air capture) and expansion of CO absorbing rock ₂ to agricultural land ("increased weathering"). . However, it is generally accepted that none of these methods alone will solve the carbon problem and that the carbon removal industry is a nascent industry and often full of fraud and messy reporting, to put it mildly. (Mike Butcher)

"Winter is coming!" warned the Stark family in Game of Thrones, and with it came a time of famine and despair. While the realm of Westeros may be a fantasy, the threat of drought and its devastating effects are all too real in many parts of the world. Changing climate patterns around the world are leaving many communities desiccated and struggling for survival. But it's not just drought we have to worry about, as some areas experience heavier rainfall and increased flooding, climate change threatens our understanding of water and security. Natural disasters follow each other. As the planet's temperature rises, more water from the oceans evaporates into the atmosphere, leading to more precipitation for most of the world. However, as the atmosphere warms, so does its ability to hold moisture for longer, leading to longer dry spells and more intense rain. Such intense rainfall poses a great risk to our current infrastructure, which has been designed to handle certain volumes of rainfall without causing major flooding or landslides. However, a prolonged drought caused by a prolonged period of low rainfall is a risk to life itself. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted that heat waves and droughts will become more frequent and severe in many regions in the coming decades, with devastating effects on agriculture, ecosystems and human populations. In fact, climate change is already having a significant impact on droughts around the world. Rising temperatures led to increased evaporation, which in turn reduced soil moisture levels, making it more difficult to grow crops. (YeniSafak)

In April, I flew to Bangkok for the final session of the 6th Assessment Cycle (AR6) of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). My return flight to Stockholm emitted more carbon than any person in the world's 50 % population with the lowest emissions in an entire year. A recent report on the synthesis of AR6 (ref go.nature.com/4hfkzpc ) concluded that rapid, deep and immediate reductions in emissions are needed to maintain a livable world. But this strong message is weakened by the actions of the IPCC. The IPCC should aggressively limit its own emissions instead of requiring face-to-face meetings and long-haul escort flights. Although the meetings contribute only a tiny fraction of total global emissions, improved accountability would have a huge impact on the IPCC's effectiveness and would be a case study for robust, internationally coordinated mitigation. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that many IPCC meetings can be conducted entirely remotely, and most climate researchers are in favor of virtual elements at conferences. It's in line with trends in the broader climate science community: The World Climate Research Programme's Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, which helps coordinate climate models, suggested that it should lead by example and move to net-zero emissions as quickly as possible. However, similar IPCC statements are notably absent. (Benjamin M. Sanderson)

In its 6th Assessment Report released in 2022 (IPCC 2022), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the first time recognizes carbon capture and use (CCU) as one of the solutions to mitigate climate change. Several future scenarios for a net-zero chemical industry in 2050 show that 10 to 30 % of embodied carbon demand will come from CO2 utilization (Kähler et al. 2023). The potential of CCU has also been recognized by several global brands that are already expanding their portfolio of raw materials. Collaboration across the value chain is key to ensuring the right balance between costs and benefits. In Europe, investment and prospects for CO2 utilization are largely undermined by a lack of political support. In contrast, we see supportive policies in China as well as in the US with a law to reduce inflation. The US promotes the use of CO2 for fuels and chemicals from air capture and also from point sources including commercial plants (de la Garza 2022). Such smart policies are needed to bridge the gap by 2050 for companies to remain competitive in a sustainable transformation. Fortunately, academia and industry did not wait for intensive development and implementation of CCU technologies. Several successfully implemented technologies are currently in commercial use and many others are in the laboratory and pilot phase. Currently, CO2 and other C1-rich gases such as carbon monoxide (CO) are captured from fossil and biogenic point sources, but direct air capture (DAC) projects are also proliferating. From there, CO2 can be converted through chemical, biotechnological and electrochemical pathways into chemicals, advanced fuels, polymers, proteins or minerals. (Ahlam Raisa)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global warming scenario of 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100 assumes an annual CO2 reduction of 6 billion tonnes from carbon capture and storage by 2050. This CO2 must be transported from capture to storage or use. . For comparison, today's annual transportation of coal is about 7.5 billion tons.

CO2 can exist in gaseous, liquid, solid or supercritical fluid form depending on temperature and pressure. There are different CO2 capture technologies. Chemical absorption, membrane separation and electrochemical capture systems deliver the captured CO2 in high purity gas form. Cryogenic capture technologies deliver captured CO2 in solid form like dry ice. CO2 storage in deep onshore or offshore geological reservoirs occurs with CO2 in the supercritical liquid phase. The Icelandic company CARBFIX has developed storage in shallow offshore or offshore wells in the young basaltic rock covering most of Iceland. With this technology, CO2 is dissolved in water, which is pumped into wells under moderate pressure. CO2 transport is most economical in dedicated CO2 pipelines when volumes are large and distances are not too long. In some cases, this also applies if the transport includes an ocean section. For smaller volumes or the transport of long ocean sections, it is more economical to transport CO2 in liquid or solid form. (Henrik Madsen)

The situation seems to be getting worse with every report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The latest is the Synthesis report (March 2023), which reveals that the global surface temperature between 2011-2020 was about 1.09 degrees Celsius higher than between 1850-1900. Incidentally, this is an average temperature that is higher over land (1.59 degrees) than over the ocean (0.88 degrees). The report also states that historical net emissions from 1850 to 2019 were about 2,400 (+/- 240) gigatonnes (GT) of CO2. About 58 percent of that happened between 1850 and 1989, and the rest from 1990 to 2019. In addressing carbon emissions, the key issue is inequality—that is, how the developed world gets out of very high carbon emissions per capita and prepares the developing world for what even for minimal energy consumption. The UNFCCC report (1992) states that climate protection should be done on the basis of equity and in accordance with their "common but differentiated responsibilities" (CBDR) and respective capacities. Consequently, in the Kyoto Protocol (1997), more responsibility was transferred to the developed world, which was assigned legally binding targets, while targets for developing countries were voluntary. The Kyoto Protocol was not ratified by the US because developing countries such as China and India, which were large emitters (although their per capita emissions were much lower than the world average), did not have binding targets. Canada also withdrew in 2012. Japan and Russia later did so. By 2012, the Kyoto Protocol had weakened to the point that it covered only 11.8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (WRI). (THE AUTHOR SUMIT DASGUPTA)

On March 20, 2023, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 6th Assessment Report (AR6), which addresses the likelihood that current and planned climate change mitigation action will successfully keep global temperature increases below 1.5 degrees Celsius (C). , and the consequences of the likely development of climate change on the global economy. The greenhouse gas emissions data used in the analysis are from 2019 and do not reflect any changes in economic activity that have occurred due to the shutdowns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic that have occurred around the world. The previous report (AR5) was issued in 2014, ahead of commitments made by 195 countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions under the Paris Agreement, which was agreed in December 2015. The IPCC is an arm of the United Nations charged with developing scientific knowledge about climate change and its likely impact on the world in which we live. They recruit scientific experts from multiple relevant disciplines from around the world to regularly produce and collate peer-reviewed reports that reflect the latest credible research on how climate change is affecting the natural environment and human-made infrastructure, and the physical and economic consequences of these impacts. You can find the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) for IPCC's sixth round of assessments here. Overall, the report says that to date, the planet has warmed by about 1.19 degrees C since the end of the 1st century due to the continued increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that countries that are signatories to the Paris Agreement have not implemented policies that would get the planet on a path that would keep us below the crucial 1.5°C threshold. In fact, at our current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the authors estimate that we will cumulatively exhaust the global carbon budget that would keep us below 1.5 degrees until about 2030, or less than a decade from now. To avoid the likely scenario of exceeding this 1.5°C target, governments will need to make immediate and deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors this decade. (STEPHANIE MERCIER)

       A climate change visualization created at the University of Reading has been used in the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Professor Ed Hawkins, a climatologist at the University of Reading, created warming bands in 2017 to show the increase in average global temperature for each year since 1850, with blue for colder temperatures and red for warmer years. The streaks were included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's sixth assessment report, published today (Monday 20 March). The figure shows the different worlds future generations will face depending on how early climate action is taken. Unless drastic measures are taken sooner and warming continues beyond 2100, future generations will face extreme weather conditions due to rising temperatures. Professor Ed Hawkins, a climatologist at the University of Reading and the National Center for Atmospheric Sciences, said: “The use of warming bands in the IPCC assessment report is a chilling reminder of the consequences we will face if we do not act now on climate change. These stripes paint a clear picture of the different and dangerous worlds that future generations could inherit depending on our actions today.

The IPCC completed the summary report for the Sixth Assessment Report during the 58th session of the panel held in Interlaken, Switzerland from 13 to 19 March 2023.

READ THE MESSAGE

Acrimonious negotiations between countries trying to protect their financial and political interests ended up "watering down" the landmark climate report released last week by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, according to a series of recent reports and investigations. The findings point to what activists have long warned is preventing meaningful global action to limit warming, that vested interests prevent countries from cooperating when it comes to exactly how they plan to cut their emissions and finance adaptation efforts. The IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report, published on March 20, is a synthesis of years of expert research on the causes and consequences of the climate crisis and is likely to be the last update from the international climate body before it becomes impossible to prevent global warming of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Scientists say that once this threshold is crossed, entire ecosystems could collapse and millions of people would likely lose their lives by the end of the century due to intensifying heat waves, storms and famines. But while scientists largely agreed on their part of the summary report, which consisted of condensing seven years of complex scientific findings into 85 pages, far more volatile negotiations took place behind closed doors over a shorter summary of the report aimed at policymakers. The process of approving this summary of the report, which took place earlier this month in Switzerland, requires the unanimous consent of delegates from all 195 participating countries, making it an extremely difficult and complex undertaking.

The reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one of which was published this week, are highly scrutinized and very important, but they mostly confirm what we already know: man-made greenhouse gases are rapidly and catastrophically changing the planet, and if we don't quickly reduce burning fossil fuels, we face a dire future. The message is far from hopeless – “Taking effective and just climate action will not only reduce loss and damage to nature and people, but also bring wider benefits,” IPCC Chairman Hoesung Lee said in a press release. "This summary report underlines the urgency of taking more ambitious action and shows that if we act now, we can still secure a sustainable, livable future for all." But "acting now" means taking dramatic action to change the way we do most things, especially produce energy. People who should be treating this situation like a colossal emergency are still finding ways to delay and weaken a meaningful response. Fossil fuels generate huge profits for some of the most powerful individuals and institutions on Earth, who influence and even control many other people. It's bleak to say, but there's a kind of comedy in it as they keep trying to come up with excuses not to do the one key thing that climate activists, political pundits, activists and scientists have long been telling them they need to do: stop fossil fuel financing , stop their extraction, stop their burning and accelerate the transition from their use. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, perhaps the most powerful person swimming against the tide, said yesterday that we must move to "net-zero electricity generation by 2035 for all developed economies and by 2040 for the rest of the world" and introduce "a global phase-down of current oil and gas production that will be in line with the global goal of net-zero production by 2050". All the other measures that help the climate – including protecting forests and wildlife, rethinking agriculture, food, transport and urban design – are important, but there is no substitute or solution to leaving the fossil fuel age. The IPCC tells us that “any increase in global warming will intensify multiple and concurrent hazards. Deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a marked slowdown in global warming within about two decades and also to marked changes in the composition of the atmosphere within a few years." In the next section of the report, the scientists declare: "Projected CO2 emissions from the existing fossil fuel infrastructure fuels without additional emission reductions would exceed the remaining carbon budget at 1.5°C.” This translates to: what we are already extracting and using is already too much to maintain the temperature limit set in Paris. As climate communicator Ketan Joshi put it on Twitter: "The people who decide the pace of climate action and dependence on fossil fuels aren't acting like they're pulling the lever for Earth's next few thousand years."

The summary report released earlier this week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) continues to be written about, with several media outlets focusing on a summary of the report's approval process published by the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) Climate Home News reports that governments “ fought over how their favorite green technologies are described'. It says: “When the governments met in Switzerland to approve the report, the Saudi-led group pushed for an emphasis on removing carbon from the atmosphere through carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. But the group of mostly European countries wanted the report to say that solar and wind electricity "is currently cheaper than fossil fuel energy in many regions." Germany said the sentence was of "paramount" importance, but according to the summary, Saudi Arabia "strongly objected to the inclusion of this sentence". CHN adds: “The representative of the Bahamas called for the report to explicitly state that unlike wind and solar, CCS technology is not being discounted. But Saudi Arabia pushed back, saying CCS and CDR were "in fact necessary." The paragraph they discussed ended up referring to the "sustained reduction" in the cost of solar, wind and batteries with no mention of CCS or CDR." Bloomberg coverage focuses on how countries including China, the US, Saudi Arabia and Norway have "weakened " message. And Quartz notes that the ENB summary is excluded from smaller “meetings” where detailed discussions take place. News portal Distilled published an article with the headline: "How meat and fossil fuel producers undermined the latest IPCC report". The journal Carbon Brief has now published its detailed summary of the IPCC report, which also draws on the ENB reports.

Isabella Kaminski, Climate Home News

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now published in full the final part of the world's most comprehensive assessment of climate change, detailing the "unequivocal" role of humans, its impact on "every region" of the world and the actions that need to be taken to address it. solution. The summary report is the last of the IPCC's sixth assessment cycle, in which 700 scientists from 91 countries participated. The entire news cycle lasted a total of eight years. The report provides the clearest and most compelling evidence yet of how humans are responsible for the 1.1°C rise in temperature recorded since the start of the industrial era. It also shows how the consequences of this warming are already deadly and disproportionately affect the most vulnerable people in the world. The report says policies put in place by the end of 2021 – the cut-off date for the evidence in the assessment – would likely cause temperatures to exceed 1.5°C this century and reach around 3.2°C by 2100. The report says that in many parts of the world, people and ecosystems will not be able to adapt to such warming. Losses and damage will "increase with each increase" in global temperature. But the report also outlines how governments can still take action to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, with the rest of this decade crucial to deciding the impacts by the end of the century. The report states: "Decisions and actions taken this decade will have an impact now and for thousands of years." The report shows that many options for tackling climate change – from wind and solar power to tackling food waste and greening cities – are already now cost-effective, have public support and would bring co-benefits to human health and nature. At a press briefing, leading climatologist and IPCC author Professor Friederike Otto said the report highlighted "not only the urgency of the problem and its gravity, but also many reasons for hope – because we still have time to act and we have everything we need".

Carbon Brief's team of journalists have combed through every page of the full IPCC AR6 summary report to produce a digestible summary of key findings and graphs.

1. What is this message?
2. How does the Earth's climate change?
3. How do man-made emissions cause global warming?
4. How much warmer will the world be this century?
5. What are the potential consequences of different levels of warming?
6. How can warming cause sudden and irreversible change?
7. What does the report say about losses and damages?
8. Why is climate action currently "inadequate"?
9. What is needed to stop climate change?
10. How can individual sectors expand climate action?
11. What does the report say about adaptation?
12. What are the advantages of short-term climate measures?
13. Why is finance an "incentive" and a "barrier" to climate action?
14. What are the co-benefits for the Sustainable Development Goals?
15. What does the report say about equity and inclusion?

The release of the IPCC's latest report continues to be written about, with Climate Home News focusing on how government negotiators "battled hard last week [at the final plenary] over which groups and regions are defined as particularly vulnerable to climate change". The paper adds: “Representatives of countries from various regions, including Africa, Asia, Latin America and small island states, pushed for them to be singled out as particularly vulnerable. Tanzania and Timor-Leste requested that the world's poorest countries, known as Least Developed Countries (LDCs), be added to the list of affected communities, according to a meeting report prepared by the IISD think tank.'

In Semafor, Tim McDonnell writes that "international climate negotiators are divided over key elements of a UN fund they are creating to redistribute financial resources from wealthier countries to low-income countries affected by climate change, negotiators told me this week and observers'. He adds: "Eight months ahead of the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, two dozen delegates from different countries are trying to set rules for the 'loss and damage' fund adopted at last year's COP27 summit in Egypt, which is the summit's biggest success. They have just three meetings scheduled before COP28, the first of which will take place in Egypt next week to agree on the basic details of how the fund will be used and where the money will come from. Negotiators say they have a good chance of getting money early at the start of talks."

Returning to the IPCC report, independent journalist Rishika Pardikar claims in the Indian magazine Carbon Copy that it "reveals unequal science," adding: "Its climate models do not reflect and uphold the principles of equity and the right to development in charting decarbonization pathways." Mongabay interviews by IPCC author Aditi Mukherji "on the energy transition in agriculture and water security". Media Matters for America reveals that the new IPCC report "got just 14 minutes of corporate and cable TV airtime" in the US. And Bloomberg's Lara Williams uses the report's release to argue that "the climate crisis is coming for your kids."

Isabella Kaminski, Climate Home News, Carbon Brief

Author: LADISLAV MARKOVIČ, IVAN GARČÁR

We are running out of time.

"The climate time bomb is ticking. However, the latest IPCC report is a guide to defuse the climate time bomb. It is a guide to the survival of mankind. As stated in this report, a warming limit of 1.5°C is achievable. But a giant leap forward will be needed in the fight against climate change, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said. "This summary report underlines the urgency of taking more ambitious action and shows that if we act now, we can still secure a sustainable future for all," said IPCC Chair Hoesung-Lee. This summary report is the final chapter of the Sixth Assessment Panel. It highlights the scale of the challenge due to the continued increase in greenhouse gas emissions and points out that the pace and scale of what has been done so far, and even current plans, are not enough to tackle climate change. More than a century of burning fossil fuels, as well as uneven and unsustainable use of energy and land, has led to global warming reaching 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels (1850-1900). This results in increasingly frequent and intense extreme weather events, which cause increasingly dangerous impacts on nature and people in every region of the world. Any increase in warming results in rapidly escalating dangerous weather and climate manifestations. More intense heat waves, heavier rainfall, prolonged droughts and other weather extremes further increase the risk to human health and ecosystems. Extreme heat is currently killing people in every region of the world. As the warming trend continues, it is expected that the uncertainty of food and water availability caused by climate change will increase further. Coping with climate risks is even more challenging if they are combined with other adverse events, such as pandemics or war conflicts.

The sixth "summary report" of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released this week, is still being reacted to. Commenting for the Financial Times, columnist Pilita Clark writes that it is "amazing how media coverage has changed since the fifth assessment". Clark writes: “On the day its first report appeared in 2013, one of the BBC's main news programs conducted a long interview with a climate skeptic about the finding that man was an 'extremely likely' main cause of 'unequivocally' global warming... Today it would was unimaginable.” He continues: “It is sobering to consider how much climate policymaking and the IPCC itself have been affected by all the years when climate skepticism was mainstream.” Clark concludes: “The IPCC's Policy Brief released this week does not hold back. He talks with bleak clarity about how the risk of tipping points, species extinctions and other disasters will increase as the planet warms. We have never been better informed about the future of the climate. Now we have to make up for all those lost years and try to make it livable.”

An editorial in India's Business Standard newspaper said: "Indian scientists who were part of the IPCC warned that the country faces the greatest risk from climate change - from heat waves and cyclones to urban and rural displacement." In an article titled "[n ]only adaptation' it says that 'climate change mitigation in India requires an urgent solution'. Commenting for the Guardian, Professor Simon Lewis of University College London said: “The document is important because it was commissioned by 195 governments and its summary was agreed line by line. It's a fact accepted by nations around the world and a common basis for future action." Lewis says it "will also be part of the preparations for the next UN climate talks to be held in November and December in the United Arab Emirates, known as COP28." . He continues: "COP28 will be a global clash of oil interests against a viable future, with a clarity the world has never seen before." Robin Webster, head of communications for UK-based NGO Climate Outreach, writes in the caption for Climate Home News : "The IPCC climate scientists have done their job - now we must do ours." He adds: "As citizens, we must educate and inspire our peers to act on climate change through positive and empowering campaigns." BusinessGreen editor James Murray responds to the report with a comment , stating, “The latest IPCC report is more sober than ever, and emissions are still rising—but climate doomism is not the answer.” Commenting for the Washington Post, columnist Eugene Robinson writes, “If we take bold, coordinated, global action now—in this decade - we can limit climate change to a bearable level. But if we stay the course, then heaven help us all.” Robinson adds: “A market-oriented solution would be a carbon tax to incentivize the transition to clean energy. Until it is politically possible, governments must continue to support the transition to the new technology." Reuters quotes Dirk Forrister, president and chief executive of the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), as commenting under the headline: "As climate bells ring on alarm, we need to drastically expand carbon markets.”

Elsewhere, a piece for BBC Future looks at how to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using the "negative emissions" that the IPCC report says will be necessary to limit global warming. An article in the Washington Post zooms in on one graph from the report under the headline: "This visual shows how climate change will affect generations." Finally, Bloomberg publishes a transcript of its reporters Akshat Rathi and Oscar Boyd's discussion about "the latest IPCC report and why it matters."

Pilita Clark, Financial Times, Carbon Brief

Looking at new energy scenarios published by "oil and gas giant" Shell, the Times reports: "In the worst case scenario... net zero greenhouse gas emissions would not be reached until 2100. In the best case scenario, the world would reach this milestone in the early 1960s. 2000s, but according to Shell it would be "extremely challenging". The document continues: "Shell has advocated scenarios that it says do not represent the company's forecast or strategy." Bloomberg also covers Shell's scenarios, opening that: "Technology that vacuums carbon emissions from the air would require more energy, as it is used to run the world's households, if it is to play a significant role in achieving global climate goals." Separately, City AM reports that Shell "will today defend its three-year emissions targets missing at its annual ESG update, as City AM learned, despite intense pressure from activist shareholders".

Adam Vaughan, The Times, Carbon Brief

There are a number of editorials and commentaries on the recently published IPCC Synthesis Report. A Guardian editorial highlights the need for more public funding to effectively tackle climate change. "We cannot leave the solution to global warming to the private sector," the paper said. It goes on to say: "This is why there is a need for much more state involvement - but without socializing risks and allowing banks to privatize profits." An editorial in the Scotsman describes global warming as a "deadly disease". He writes: “Politicians who do not take this diagnosis seriously are lost in a fever dream. Their illusions will only lead to disaster.”

The Daily Mail's short editorial describes the language of the report as "hysterical" and "distinctly familiar". He writes: “Yesterday's predictions of disaster by UN climatologists were clearly known. Catastrophic global warming. Catastrophic floods, heat and famine." The documentary continues: "Wouldn't it be easier to trust the green lobby - and encourage people to make sacrifices to help the environment - if they avoided such hysterical talk?" report for "nothing more than manufactured hysteria" and wrote: "Free markets and commercially driven innovation are more than capable of dramatically reducing carbon emissions with just a little nudge." And they could do it far more quickly and cheaply and with far greater public acceptance than the top-down, state-driven solutions promoted by the IPCC and its supporters.” (The IPCC does not make policy recommendations.)

Bloomberg columnist David Fickling claims that "even before taking into account any benefits in terms of climate avoidance and reduced health problems, going down the low-carbon path is currently considered the cheaper option in terms of upfront direct expenditure". He continues: “At a carbon price of less than US$100 per tonne – comparable to the current prices of emission allowances in Europe and tax credits in the US – there is, according to the IPCC, a feasible technology that can cut emissions in half over the current decade… Given that fossil fuel emissions fuels will peak within two years, now it's not whether our carbon footprint will shrink, but what the rate of decline will be." changes to Pacific countries. They write: “Countries cannot continue to justify new fossil fuel projects with development or the energy crisis. It is our dependence on fossil fuels that has left our energy infrastructure vulnerable to conflict and devastating climate impacts, billions of people without access to energy, and investment in more flexible and resilient clean energy systems falling short of what is needed.”

In closing, Times environment editor Adam Vaughan draws attention to the report's conclusions and the UK's policy of net-zero energy by 2050, which it is currently failing to achieve. "Zero Emissions Minister Grant Shapps is planning a 'green day' later this month where he can use the IPCC's 'summary report' as ammunition for bolder plans to cut emissions," writes Vaughan. He continues: "Shapps will be judged on whether it's his Green Day if we use the eponymous punk band's songs, 'Basket Case' or 'Welcome To Paradise.'" Vaughan closes his column with a list titled "[W]hat can we do?" , which includes "promoting... wind and solar energy"; "choosing a plant-based diet" and the IPCC's confirmation that "communities can influence 'political support' for reducing climate change".

Editorial, The Guardian

The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was approved on Monday after a week-long approval session in Switzerland, has been widely reported in the media. According to the Financial Times, the report said warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures is "more likely than not". The report continues: Previous IPCC reports have stated: “Carbon emissions continued to rise relentlessly last year, but for the world to have any hope of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, they must fall by almost half by 2030.” In the new report, this it reiterates the finding and, as the FT notes, adds a new table showing emissions reductions needed by 2035, 2040 and 2045, as well as by 2050. (The aim is to inform the next rounds of UN climate commitments that will be cover the period until 2035). Separately, BBC News reports that "projected CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure such as oil wells and gas pipelines would exceed the remaining carbon budget". Meanwhile, the Independent writes that "drastic and deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are needed to keep the average global temperature below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels". The Guardian's front page headlines the report: "The IPCC found that more than 3 billion people already live in areas that are 'highly vulnerable' to climate change, and half the world's population now experience severe water shortages at least part of the year . The report warns that in many areas we are already reaching the limits of how we can adapt to such major changes, and extreme weather is "increasingly displacing" people in Africa, Asia, North, Central and South America and the South Pacific." The report "is striking in how many references it contains to the loss and damage already suffered by communities around the world", writes the New York Times. Climate Home News adds: "Scientists say a 'manifold' increase in funding is needed to meet climate goals and protect communities disproportionately affected by global warming." The Wall Street Journal writes: "The world's nations must collectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2035 % to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels." The Times adds: "The IPCC report says humanity's role is 'unequivocal' and has caused 1.1°C of global warming since the industrial revolution .” Meanwhile, the Guardian quotes IPCC chairman Hoesung Lee: “Tackling climate change is a difficult, complex and enduring challenge for generations. We, the scientific community, present the facts of the grim reality, but also point to the prospect of hope through concerted, genuine and global transformational change.”

The Independent reports that the new summary report "summarises six previous IPCC reports published since 2018, which collected and analyzed thousands of scientific papers". He calls the report "the clearest and most up-to-date assessment of the climate crisis." The document also quotes UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who spoke at a press conference to mark the launch of the report: “Today's IPCC report is a guide to defuse the climate time bomb. It is a survival manual for humanity.” The Associated Press also quotes Guterres: “Humanity is on thin ice — and that ice is melting fast… Our world needs climate action on all fronts — everything, everywhere, all at once.” According to Climate Home News Guterres "is launching an "acceleration program for all parties" which "starts with parties immediately pressing the button to accelerate their net zero deadlines to achieve global net zero consumption by 2050". Politico adds that Guterres wants developed countries to commit to net-zero emissions by 2040 and developing countries by 2050. (There has been some confusion over whether Guterres meant net-zero CO2 emissions or net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. In the report The IPCC states: “Pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C with no exceedance or limited exceedance will achieve net zero CO2 emissions by early 2050, followed by net negative CO2 emissions of gases, they will do so around 2070.") Politico adds that Gurerres asked the countries of the OECD group of developed countries to commit to phasing out coal by 2030, with other countries to follow suit by 2040. The Times newspaper about he writes on the front page under the headline "UN sounds the alarm over net zero emissions targets". The Daily Telegraph writes: "The UK, like most other developed countries, has set itself a target of net zero emissions by 2050, and its climate change advisers have said that getting there any faster will be 'difficult to implement'." (The UK's target is net zero for all greenhouse gases by 2050. The "balanced path" to this target, set out by its official climate advisers, will achieve net zero CO2 emissions around 2043). The Independent reports that outgoing Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “We need to start taking this much more seriously or future generations will never forgive us, and rightly so.” And the Times of India quotes In.

Camilla Hodgson and Attracta Mooney, Financial Times, Carbon Brief