The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the final summary of its sixth report on Monday. As a new seven-year cycle is to begin, some scientists are questioning the usefulness of this work, when the essentials of global warming are now known.
“The Giec could close shop. No need for a seventh then eighth report. We did our job.” It is the message sent by climatologist Pierre Friedlingstein, on Twitter, Monday March 20, the day of the release of the synthesis of the sixth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. On the phone, the person concerned clarifies his point “a bit provocative”. “We know the first order information on global warming and it is enough to act. Policy makers do not need the second or third comma after the decimal on the level of warming to take action”he develops.
>> #OnVousRépond: our answers to your questions on global warming
While recognizing the “scientific gold mine” what these reports constitute, Pierre Friedlingstein fears that they serve “apology for inaction”that governments continue “to wait for the next report before committing”. It’s the reaction “we are patient and we advise” staging in the film Don’t Look Up : rather than taking immediate action in the face of the comet which is heading straight for Earth, the authorities prefer to wait for new studies.
In fact, global greenhouse gas emissions, caused mainly by the consumption of coal, oil and gas, have not stopped increasing since the publication of the first IPCC report in 1990. In 2023, these experts can only see that “the pace and scale of the measures taken so far” stay “insufficient to tackle climate change”.
A synthesis of scientific knowledge
The Swiss economist Julia Steinberger, very critical of the lack of action against climate change and who participated in roadblocks in the fall of 2022, conversely considers that the work of the IPCC remains necessary. These experts do not produce new research but compile and assess the strength of existing studies to synthesize them. “Today, there are an exorbitant number of articles coming out on the climate. It is impossible for one person to know everything that is going on”recalls Julia Steinberger, who participated in the sixth round of evaluation.
“This work of doing a complete and trustworthy inventory every seven years is very important and will not be easily replaced.”
Julia Steinberger, economistat franceinfo
Sophie Szopa, atmospheric chemist and co-author of the IPCC report, also believes that there is still “a lot to do” to improve knowledge on climate change. “We cannot have correctly sized solutions if we do not know precisely what the physical changes are going to be”, she argues. Candidate for the presidency of the IPCC, the Belgian climatologist Jean-Pascal van Ypersele considers that “the IPCC could also further analyze the reasons for insufficient action and the obstacles to greater ambition”.
Figure of the IPCC since 2015, the climatologist Valérie Masson-Delmotte insists for her part on the uncertainties which require more research: the loss of efficiency of carbon sinks – vegetation and soil capture part of our greenhouse gas emissions greenhouse but global warming risks weakening this capacity – and the melting of West Antarctica, which could be faster than expected. “We still have very strong uncertainties about this tipping point”explains the one who will leave the institution this year.
A way to put the climate on the political agenda
Outside the scientific sphere, Anne Bringault, program coordinator for the Climate Action Network, sees in the IPCC reports “extremely important work”. “We always rely on it to challenge politicians. These reports also create a moment on the public agenda, where we can ask ourselves and look at this issue of climate change. They have a mobilizing role”, she continues. The community activist, however, would like future reports to be even more solution-oriented: “It would be interesting to have feedback on what is put in place”at a more frequent rate, she suggests.
During its sixth assessment cycle, the IPCC published a series of “special” (thematic) reports on the differences between a warming of +1.5°C and +2°C, on the ocean and the cryosphere or on the land, in addition to the traditional reports on causes, consequences and solutions. “Many of us believe that there should be mainly special reports in the next few years, with just a regular update of certain chapters of the classic reports”suggests Sophie Szopa.
“I would like to see the Giec propose a special report each year, with new themes. For example, a report on health is missing”abounds Julia Steinberger. “In any case, the IPCC reports will have to respond closely to the increasingly pressing and precise needs of decision-makers”, warns Jean-Pascal van Ypersele. We already know that the first report of the new cycle will be devoted to cities. “If this job was already available, it would not have been requested”concludes Valérie Masson-Delmotte.