Hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts, and floods seem like common occurrences with their frequency in the news. In Texas, we had our own extreme weather event, Winter Storm Uri, last year. These events can seem coincidental, natural, and “part of life”, but the intensity and frequency at which they occur and will occur are not. And it’s thanks to human-induced climate change.
Climate change is the long-term change in average weather patterns that define local, regional, and global climates. Anthropogenic climate change is human-induced warming caused by industrial production, and other factors that produce heat-trapping gasses called greenhouse gases, that slowly rise the earth’s surface temperature.
Rising global temperatures bring catastrophic consequences. Some of those consequences are the intensification of natural weather phenomena that frequently target low-income and vulnerable communities–those that produce the least greenhouse gases. Melting glaciers, hurricanes, and the rise in sea levels will subsequently become more extreme and frequent because of a warming climate.
The exacerbation of these weather events will and are currently displacing entire communities, endangering species, rupturing biodiversity, and destroying human health. Several decades of climate science have proved this to be true. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – a leading scientific organization – warns that if global climate action – things like affordable and clean energy, sustainable infrastructure, and land conservation – isn’t enhanced, then the already present consequences will worsen. Some consequences may even be irreversible as global average temperatures pass the 1.5℃ (2.7℉) threshold.
1.5℃ is the limit for when climate impacts will go from bad to detrimental, or irreversible. Continued warming above that line will bring harrowing consequences like massive forced migration, severe food scarcity, and lack of water across the globe. Currently, human activities have caused 1℃ above pre-industrial levels. Climate scientists expect global warming to reach 1.5℃ between 2030 and 2052 at its current rate.
Unfortunately, these climate-induced impacts target vulnerable communities across the globe that don’t possess the financial and technical resources to offset those challenges. Regions of Africa, the Small Islands Nations, and South America are currently facing those consequences the most, yet cannot adapt. That is where climate finance and loss and damage have the potential to bridge those resource barriers.
However, as witnessed at COP26, – the annual United Nations Climate Conference of Parties – large emitter countries were resistant to providing financial contributions to loss and damages funds. To make it worse, the top 10 global emitters account for over two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions, and without adaptation finances and remittances for losses and damages – entire communities will continue to suffer.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
In 1988, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) – an organization responsible for the coordination of the UN’s environmental agenda – and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The responsibility of the IPCC was to prepare detailed reviews and recommendations of current knowledge on climate change science, the socioeconomic impacts of climate change, and any potential response strategies.
Since its formation, the IPCC has delivered five assessment cycles and five assessment reports using the most accurate and latest data available on climate change. Currently, the IPCC is on its Sixth Assessment Report made up of three installments created by three different working groups. The IPCC conducts these reports every six to seven years with fresh groups of scientists.The Sixth Assessment Report focuses on climate change, but each installment reports on a unique concept. Working Group I focused on the physical science behind climate change. Working Group II focused on the impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability of climate change. Working Group III will focus on the mitigation of climate change, releasing this April.
Given the IPCC’s long history, what’s different about the Sixth Assessment Report?
The answer is language.
In the first installment of the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), data has shown that their rhetoric differs greatly from any of their previous five reports. Scientists use phrases such as medium confidence, low confidence, and high confidence to show the confidence intervals of their statistical observations.
The first installment used “virtually certain,” “very high confidence,” and “extremely likely” in higher quantities. This shows that IPCC scientists are the most confident about their climate change observations than ever before. Language is a powerful tool in environmental discourse, and Working Group II’s report on adaptation is no exception.
This second installment of AR6 makes a notable shift in the conversation around climate change inequity – how climate change unequally impacts individuals across the globe. In previous installments, they would often reference “Poor” and “Developing” countries when describing climate inequity. However, this edition used words like “Inclusive”, “Justice”, and “Inequality/Unequal” more frequently when describing climate inequity.
These changes reflect a broader effort to strengthen, uplift, and highlight the voices of those already marginalized by climate change, such as Island Nations. The movement toward more inclusive language is game-changing because inclusive language leads to better representation.
Representation in environmental affairs isn’t a trivial matter. During COP26, inclusive representation was a large concern for many countries because of the barriers that existed to attend, including access to vaccines, travel expenses, and health safety
This installment adopted an inclusive shift in rhetoric and centered human wellbeing, equality, and justice as their top priorities. The IPCC called for “inclusive planning initiatives informed by cultural values, Indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, and scientific knowledge.” The intention was to prove that diverse voices of information are required to achieve human well-being.
Having an inclusive approach to science puts those at the forefront of harm as people to listen to and not just people to feel sorry for. This years upcoming COP 27 in Egypt is already focusing on those major themes – framing climate justice and equity at the center of climate negotiations.
However, language shifting, while important, doesn’t negate the need to have actual climate actions implemented and strengthened. As highlighted in this report, adaptation efforts and plans exist; however, the statistics on their effectiveness and rate of implementation are uncertain. The past two installments of AR6 signal a rhetorical shift in the right direction, but it doesn’t solve climate change alone.
The following blog post will focus on three key messages from the second installment of AR6: adaptation, loss and damage, and the advantages of nature; cities and their vulnerabilities and power; and a closing deadline for climate resilient development.