Refinitiv Newscasts - UN climate agency releases second chapter of scientific report 1

Kemper

28/02/2022 14:13

Click the following link to watch video: https://share.newscasts.refinitiv.com/link?entryId=1_7z2jd0u8&referenceId=1_7z2jd0u8&pageId=RefinitivNewscasts
Source: Reuters

Description: The U.N. climate science agency releases the second chapter of
its seminal report, with the latest global scientific consensus on how climate
change will test economies and how countries can adapt. The first chapter was
release in September 2021.
Short Link: https://refini.tv/3pqQubJ

Video Transcript:

>> The instructions on how to submit questions have already been shared with
the IPCC accredited media yesterday, and again this morning. When submitting
your questions, please do indicate your name, your media organization, and to
whom your question is directed to. We will try to accommodate as many
questions as possible, but due to high level of media interests, we may simply
not be able to address them all. We are scheduled to wrap up this press
conference by 1:30 pm Central European Time. I'm pleased now to welcome the
Secretary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Mr. Abdalah
Mokssit, who will introduce today's speakers. >> Thank you all for joining us
today for the release of this important report. This IPCC report on impacts,
adaptation, and vulnerability to climate change for laws. The reports on the
physical science basis we launched in August 2021. It also comes before the
two last reports, which we expect this year. With this report, we will
conclude the sixth assessment report of the IPCC, the most intense in the
history of IPCC. We have successfully completed the second ever IPCC virtual
approval session. And I wish to express my deep appreciation to the scientists
working on a voluntary basis, the governments, observers, organizations, and
everyone else who contributed to this report. The IPCC is a unique interface
between policy and science. That's what makes our reports the most credible
resource on climate change for decision makers at all levels. I am incredibly
honored to welcome and introduce our distinguished guest speakers. First, we
will see the video message from the United Nations Secretary-General
António Guterres. Today we will also hear from the IPCC chair, Professor
Hoesung Lee, and the two heads of our parent organizations. The World
Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Professor Petteri Taalas, and
the United Environment Program Executive Director, Dr. Inger Andersen. We also
have the two co-chairs who led the production of the reports, Dr. Debra
Roberts and Dr. Hans-Otto Portner. We will now see the video message from the
United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres. >> Dear representatives
of the media, I've seen many scientific reports in my time, but nothing like
these. Today's IPCC report is an atlas of human suffering and the damning
indictment of failed climate leadership. With fact upon fact, these reports
reveals our people in the planet are getting clobbered by climate change.
Nearly half of humanity is leaving in the danger zone now. Many ecosystems are
at the point of no return now. Check the carbon pollution is forcing the
world's most vulnerable on a frog march to destruction now. The facts are
undeniable. These abdication of leadership is criminal. The world's biggest
polluters are guilty of arson on our only home. It is essentially to meet the
goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. Science tells us that
will require the world to cut emissions by 45% by 2030 and achieve net 0
emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050. According to current commitments,
global emissions are set to increase almost 14% over the current decades. That
spells catastrophe. It will destroy any chance if keeping 1.5 alive. Today's
reports and the scores to core truth. First, coal and other fossil fuels are
chocking humanity. Only 20 governments have agreed to stop funding coal
abroad. They must now urgently do the same at home, and dismantle their coal
fleets. Those in the private sector still financing coal must be held to
account. Oil and gas giants and their underwriters are also on notice. You
cannot claim to be green while your plans and projects in their mind, the 2015
net-zero target, and ignore the major emission cuts that must occur these
decades. People see through the smoke screen. OECD countries must phase out
coal by 2030 and all others by 2040. The present global energy mix is broken.
As current events may call to clear, or continued reliance on fossil fuels
makes the global economy and energy security vulnerable to geopolitical shocks
and crises. Instead of slowing down the decarbonization of the global economy,
now is the time to accelerate the energy transition to a renewable energy
future. Fossil fuels are a dead end for our planet, for humanity, and yes, for
economies. A prompt, well-managed transition to renewables is the only best
way to energy security, universal access, and the green jobs our world needs.
I'm calling for developed countries, multilateral development banks, private
financials, and others to form coalitions throughout measured emerging
economies and the use of coal. These targeted mechanisms of supports will be
over and above existing sustainable development needs. The second core finding
from these reports is slightly better news. Investments in adaptation work.
Adaptation saves lives. As climate impacts worsen, and they will, scaling up
investments will be essential for survival. Adaptation and mitigation must be
pursued with equal force and urgency. That is why I've been pushing to get the
50% of all climate finance for adaptation. The Glasgow commitment on
adaptation funding is not enough to meet the challenges faced by nations on
the front lines of the climate crisis. I'm also pressing to remove the
obstacles that prevent small island states, and least developed countries from
getting the finance they desperately need to save lives and livelihoods. We
need new eligibility systems to deal with this new reality. Delay means death.
I take inspiration from all those on the front lines of the climate battle
fighting back with solutions. All development banks, multilateral, regional,
national, know what needs to be done. Work with governments to design
pipelines of bankable adaptation projects, and help them find the funding
public, and private. Every country must honor the Glasgow pledge to strengthen
national climate plans every year until they had aligned with 1.5 degrees
Celsius. The G20 must lead the way, or humanity will pay an even more tragic
price. I know people everywhere are anxious and angry. I am too. Now is the
time to turn rage into action. Every fraction of the degree matters, every
voice can make a difference, and every second counts. Thank you. >> Following
Secretary General's message, I now invite the chair of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Dr. Hoesung Lee, to take the floor. >> Thank you very
much. Distinguished representatives, the media, WMO Secretary General Petteri,
UNEP Executive Director Andersen. We have just heard a powerful message from
the UN Secretary General, António Guterres. The findings of the IPCC report
we are releasing today are clear. The stakes for our planet have never been
higher. Last August, the IPCC's Working Group I report showed unequivocally
that human activities have warmed the climate, at a rate not seen it at least
the past 2,000 years. We are on course to reaching global warming of 1.5
degrees Celsius within the next two decades and temperature will continue to
rise unless the world takes much bolder action. The Working Group II report
we're releasing today provides the latest understanding of what does this
warming means for the people, ecosystems, and the planet. The report a dire
warning about the consequences of inaction. It shows that climate change is a
grave and mounting threat to our well-being and healthy planet. It also shows
that our action today will shape how people able to adapt climate change and
how nature responds to increasing climate risks. Severe climate change impacts
are already happening. Vulnerable people, those marginalized socially and
economically, are the most exposed to climate change impacts and have the
least resources to adapt. Today, we also deepen our understanding of solutions
to climate change and how adaptation can help us lower risks and reduce
vulnerability. These solutions open new opportunities for innovation in our
societies and economies. Our collective and individual adaptation can be an
effective strategy, but there are limits to how much we and other species can
adapt. Beyond certain temperatures, adaptation is no longer possible for some
species. Our report is a blueprint for our future on this planet. It
recognizes the interdependence of climate, ecosystems and biodiversity and
people. It integrates natural, ecological, social, and economic sciences more
strongly than in earlier IPCC assessments. It provides new knowledge and
information at regional levels and focuses on cities where the majority of
people live and opportunities for adaptation and mitigation arise. Critically,
this report highlights important survey, including and using diverse forms of
knowledge, such as indigenous and local knowledge. But most importantly, it
emphasizes the urgency of immediate and more ambitious action to address
climate risks. Half measures are no longer an option. Thank you. >> Thank you,
Chair, for these compelling remarks. I now invite the Secretary General of the
World Meteorological Organization, Petteri Taalas to take the floor. >> Today,
we are releasing the second part of the IPCC's sixth assessment report. WMO is
proud to be the co-hosting and founding organization of IPCC. The physical
science basis report was published in August. Today, we are talking about all
the very visible impacts of climate change. The report says that climate
change induced by us humans has caused widespread negative impacts to nature,
people, beyond the natural climate variability. All together, 127 risks have
been identified covering wide range of sectors, like health, agriculture,
economy, infrastructure, and ecosystems. Our atmosphere today is on steroids,
doped with fossil fuels. This is all leading to stronger, longer and more
frequent extreme weather events. Climate change induced disasters come with
high human and economic impacts. Four in ten people in the world live in
contexts highly vulnerable to climate change. Global hotspots are found in
parts of Africa, Southern Asia, small island, developing states, and Central
and South America. In many of those countries, population growth,
urbanization, and unsustainable development practices are boosting the
exposure of people and ecosystems to climate change. But all countries are
affected, as we have seen in Germany, United States, and Canada last year. It
is essential to raise the ambition level of climate mitigation that would also
have a positive impact on air quality, and is vital to tackle the looming
water crisis and sea level rise. Climate mitigation offers also great business
opportunities in many sectors like energy, transport, industry, and nutrition.
Besides mitigation, it is more and more critical to pay attention to
adaptation, since the negative trend in weather extremes will anyhow continue
for the coming decades and sea level rise for centuries due to the record high
concentration of carbon dioxide. One of the powerful ways to adapt is to
invest in early warning services. But the basic weather and climate observing
networks have severe gaps in Africa and island states. Only half of the 193
members of WMO have proper weather, climate, and hydrological services. This
leads to higher human and economic losses. Thank you very much. >> Thank you,
Secretary General Taalas, for these important remarks. I now invite Inger
Andersen, the Executive Director of UNEP, United Nations Environment Program,
to take the floor. >> Thank you so much. And to you Professor Hoesung Lee, to
you Petteri, my colleague, of course to Abdalah Mokssit, Secretary of IPCC and
to the co-chairs, Dr. Debra Roberts and Dr. Hans-Otto Pörtner, and to the
amazing and formidable IPCC scientific community and friends, greetings from
Nairobi. We are in the midst of United Nations Environment Assembly, which
gathers here to look at environmental issues. And this report comes at a time
of great turmoil when we need strong multilateralism to promote peace and
healthy environment. And the message this report sends is clear. Climate
change isn't lurking around the corner waiting to pounce, its already upon us,
raining down blows on billions of people. We've seen dangerous disruption
across the natural world. Species are migrating in search of more livable
conditions. In climate risk hotspots, deaths from floods, droughts or storms,
were 15 times higher than those in more resilient countries over the last
decade. This is climate injustice, particularly for indigenous people and
local communities. And all of this and more, at only 1.1 degrees Celsius of
global warming. Even if we limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the
blows will come harder and faster. As things stand, we're heading to closer to
three degrees Celsius. We are in an emergency heading for a disaster. We can't
keep taking these hits and treating the wounds. Soon those wounds would be too
deep, too catastrophic to heal. We need to soften and slow the blows by
cutting greenhouse gas emissions. But we also need to cushion the blows by
picking up our efforts to adapt to climate change, which have been too weak
for too long. The best way to do this is to let nature do the job it spends
millions of years perfecting, absorbing and channeling rainwater and surging
waves, maintaining biodiversity and balancing the soils so that diverse plants
can grow, providing cooling shade under leafy canopies. We need large scale
ecosystem restoration from ocean to mountain top, including through agreeing
to start negotiations on the Global Plastic Pollution Agreement here in
Nairobi at the fifth United Nations Environmental Assembly. We need to bring
nature into baking hot cities to keep them cool, we need to conserve
mangroves, coral reefs, and other nature's defenses. We need to protect and
restore wetlands for nature and incorporate wetlands into our cities. Backing
nature is the best way to adapt to and to slow climate change while providing
jobs and boosting economies, we must start dedicating thought and funding to
transformational adaptation programs with nature at their heart. Humanity has
spent centuries treating nature like it's worst enemy. The truth is that
nature can be our savior, but only if we save it first. Thank you. >> Thank
you, Director Andersen, for these thoughtful remarks. We will now hear the
presentation of the report's findings from the co-chairs of the Working Group
II, Dr. Debra Roberts and Dr. Hans-Otto Pörtner. >> Thank you, Andrei. It's
indeed a great pleasure to welcome the global community to the start of a
really important global conversation. Where I and my fellow co-chair will
present the outcomes of five years of hard work by the global scientific
community, so welcome everyone around the world. >> Can we bring up the
presentation please? Firstly, thank you to everyone for joining us and
certainly as the coaches of working group 2. And on behalf of our authors, we
are very proud to present this latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, which focuses on climate change impacts, adaptation, and
vulnerability. Two hundred and seventy authors from 67 countries have worked
tirelessly to produce this report. Over the last five years, they have
assessed 34,000 thousand scientific papers to prepare their findings. During
the review process, they considered each one of 62,418 comments from experts
and governments, which have helped make the report as comprehensive and clear
as possible. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this
process. Let us now share some of the key findings which reflect our growing
scientific knowledge and provide the best understanding yet of climate change
impacts, risks, options to adapt, and the limits we face. Perhaps this
statement based summarizes all findings. The scientific evidence is
unequivocal. Climate change is a threat to human well-being and the health of
the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief
and record the closing window to secure a livable future. This report offers
solutions to the world. And in then the next 20 minutes, we will explore these
with you. But let's start with the impacts. >> Sorry for this technical
glitch. Let's start from the beginning. Global warming from 1.51 degrees
Celsius has caused dangerous and widespread disruption in nature. The
increased frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme events on land and in
the ocean is driving mass mortalities, for example, in trees as we show here
in this drought-stressed forest in California, USA. And climate change is
affecting the lives and livelihoods of billions of people. The impacts from
human-induced intensification of tropical cyclones, sea-level rise, and heavy
rainfall have resulted in increased losses and damages. Impacts magnified in
cities where more than half the world's population lives. Heatwaves amplify
urban heat islands and air pollution to affect people's health. Critical
infrastructure such as transport, water, sanitation, and energy systems have
been compromised by extreme events. >> When multiple extreme events happen at
the same time, they compound the overall risk and are more difficult to
manage. What we see here is an example of how heat and drought combined to
cause reduction in crop yields, made worse by reduced productivity because of
heat stress amongst farmworkers. Reduced yields lead to reductions in
household incomes, increased food prices locally and potentially globally.
Climate risks do not respect national boundaries and weather-related extremes
are creating shocks to global trade. In the previous slide, we illustrated the
powerful impacts of climate change on nature and people's lives. In this
assessment, it is based on a new understanding of these interconnections. We
can no longer think in silos but have to look across climate, biodiversity and
human society, and well-being. If we wanted to tackle the mini global
challenges we face today. And talking about the challenges, climate change
combines with unsustainable use of natural resources, habitat destruction,
deforestation, and growing urbanization, as well as an equity and
marginalization. These trends not only present threats to ecosystems and the
people who rely on them, but also reduce the capacities of nature,
communities, and individuals to adapt to climate change. Three point three to
3.6 billion people live in global hotspots of high vulnerability to climate
change. These are across large parts of Africa, as well as South Asia, Central
and South America, small islands, and the Arctic. In these global hotspots,
overlapping challenges include limited access to water, sanitation, and health
services. High levels of climate-sensitive livelihoods such as smallholder
farmers and fishing communities , all increase vulnerability. High levels of
poverty, weak leadership, lack of funding, lack of accountability, and trust
in government also play a part. >> Looking to the future, every small increase
in warming will result in increased lists to nature and to people in every
region of the world. Here we see a bleached coral colony on a dying wave of
Okinawa, Japan. Let's consider some of these projected impacts on nature. This
map gives an overview of biodiversity loss at different warming levels. We
would see species extinctions and losses of entire ecosystems, such as
mountain tops, tropical coral reefs, and coastal wetlands even if we
temporarily exceed 1.5 degrees warming for several decades. The risk of
extinction in biodiversity hotspots increases by about tenfold as warming
arises from 1.5-3 degrees Celsius. Nature services support all aspects of our
lives, from pollination and tourism to health and climate regulation. Lots of
ecosystems and their services has cascading and long-term impacts on people
globally, especially for indigenous peoples and local communities who directly
depend on them. Globally, population exposure due to heatwaves will continue
to increase with additional warming at approximately two degrees Celsius.
Regions that are highly dependent on snowmelt could experience a 20% decline
in water availability for agriculture beyond 2,050. And we know that climate
change will undermine food security. At two degrees warming by 2,050, people
in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Central, and South America, and on small
islands are likely to experience food shortages, leading to malnutrition.
About a billion people living in low-lying cities and other settlements on the
coast are projected to be at risk from sea-level rise, and other climate
hazards by mid-century. We provide a global perspective here. But this report
also has an extensive regional focus. We have outlined the challenges we face
and how they will increase at higher warming levels. The key question now is,
how well are we adapting to changing climate? What we show is that action has
increased, but progress is uneven, and we're not adapting fast enough. Going
public and political awareness of climate impacts and risks has resulted in at
least 170 countries and many cities, including adaptation in their climate
policies and planning. However, there are increasing gaps between adaptation,
action taken, and what's needed. These gaps are largest among lower-income
populations. At the current rate of planning and implementation, these
adaptation gaps will continue to grow. >> Let's now turn our attention to how
we adapt. And in this report, we show that there are feasible effects of
options we can take to reduce the risk to people in nature. But they were
effectiveness decreases with increasing in warming. When we think of
adaptation, our first thoughts must be around reducing flood risks or
preventing water shortages. But what we show is that the strengthening of
health systems can reduce the impacts of infectious diseases, heat stress, and
other climate-related risks, as well as the trauma associated with extreme
events. This is particularly effective if it's combined with other measures
such as disease surveillance, early warning systems, and improving access to
potable water. Nature of a significant untapped potential not only to reduce
climate risk and deal with the causes of climate change but also to improve
people's lives and livelihoods. Agroforestry is a climate-resilient way of
growing food and creating wildlife habitat. Here we see a Nigerian rubber
farmer diversifying his business with food crops, fruit trees, and bees.
Conservation, protection, and restoration can help natural forests to adapt.
Planting a range of tree species, managing pests, and diseases, and reducing
wildfires can help both climate resilience in managed forests. In agriculture,
irrigation can be effective, but it can also result in adverse outcomes such
as accelerated depletion of groundwater. This and other adaptation measures
provide economic and ecological benefits, as well as reducing vulnerability in
urban areas and elsewhere. Effects of urban management can secure drinking
water. Most action today, it has occurred around water-related harzards, such
as reducing the restaurant floods and droughts, letting nature take its
course, such as restoring wetlands and rivers, and creating known bulbs zones
can reduce flood risks. The effectiveness of most water-related adaptation
that climbs with increasing warming. >> Food security can be enhanced by
making the food system more resilient. For example, adopting stress-tolerant
crops and livestock, agroforestry, and diversification on farms.
Community-based adaptation that is locally driven, that respects local and
indigenous knowledge systems, and is adequately resourced can also be
effective. Strengthening biodiversity can improve pest control, pollination,
carbon storage, and it can provide shade for temperature-sensitive crops such
as coffee and cacao. This all brings a range of other benefits for nutrition,
health, and well-being, and livelihoods. By 2050, urban areas could be home to
two-thirds of the world's population. Cities also offer opportunities to
transform. Using nature and engineering approaches together is important. To
manage flood risk, for example, it might be important to install floodproofing
on buildings, improved drainage along roads, and create space for water within
the city at the same time as constructing flood defenses. Establishing or
restoring green and blue spaces, parks, green corridors, pons and wetlands, as
well as urban agriculture can all be woven into the built environment.
Social-safety nets for disaster management can help people overcome the
impacts of climate change and can provide financial security. Additional
benefits include public health improvements, especially from reducing heat
stress and ecosystem conservation. In informal settlements, we show how local
knowledge, adequate funding, skills and tools, as well as policymakers and the
residents working together can deliver adaptation at a city scale.
Accountability, transparency, and commitment from government is also most
important. Here, we see community sanitation facilities being built and water
tanks being installed in informal settlements in India. >> We have evidence of
maladaptation, adaptation that results in unintended consequences. For
example, increased climate-related risks or increased greenhouse gas
emissions. In this photograph on the left are sea defenses that may not be
strong enough to protect the people living behind them. People can be lulled
into a false sense of security. Compare this to an example from Delaware in
the USA of how it's possible to use nature to provide flood protection.
Indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, and disadvantaged groups, for example,
low-income households and those living in informal settlements are some of the
most effected by maladaptation. This reinforces and entrenches existing
inequalities. We know that there are adaptation limits. Adaptation cannot
prevent all losses and damages, and even with the fit of adaptation, limits
will be reached with higher levels of warming. Some natural solutions will no
longer work above 1.5 degree Celsius warming, above 1.5 degrees Celsius, a
lack of freshwater could mean that people living on small islands and those
dependent on glaciers and snowmelt can no longer adapt, and by two degrees
Celsius, it may be especially challenging to farm multiple staple crops in
many current growing areas, particularly in tropical regions. If we focus on
financial constraints, we see that current global financial flows are
insufficient especially, in developing countries. The overwhelming majority of
global climate finance was targeted at emission reductions, while a small
portion went on adaptation. Climate impacts that result in higher levels of
losses and damages also slow down economic growth and thus reduce the
availability of financial resources. >> To avoid mounting losses, urgent
action is required to adapt to climate change, but that's not enough. At the
same time, it is essential to make rapid, deep cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions to keep the maximum number of adaptation options open. How do we
accelerate and sustain adaptation? Political commitment and follow-through
across all levels of government is key. Greater adaptation is present where
national climate laws and policies require adaptation action from lower levels
of government and include guidelines on how to do this. Another area worth
focusing on is institutional frameworks with clear goals and priorities that
define responsibilities. These frameworks can impose duties upon governments
to implement adaptation actions, for example, around conservation, sustainable
use of beaches, urban development, and targeting diseases exacerbated by
climate change. Enhancing knowledge of impacts, risks, and available
adaptation options encourages actions from society and policymakers.
Educational and information programs, and the arts can play a part. Monitoring
and evaluation is important to track progress because, in a warming world,
measures that are effective now might not work in 20 years. Adaptation
strategies might have to be revised constantly; revisions should be fact and
data-driven. Finally, inclusive governance that prioritizes equity and justice
is also important. Citizens, civil society organizations should participate
directly in planning and decision-making. It's important to highlight that
adaptation measures offer wider benefits. If we consider that 3.4 billion
people living in rural areas, many of whom are highly vulnerable to climate
change, resilience can be improved by providing social safety nets, improved
roads, reliable energy, clean water, and improved food security. These
measures not only build climate resilience, but they also go hand in hand with
helping to lift people out of poverty and achieving the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goal 1. These other simple examples demonstrate how
different goals may be achieved in a variety of circumstances. In this report,
we have looked at the synergies in some depth. This is how we illustrate the
multiple benefits of adaptation options. If you look at this figure, you see
forest-based adaptation. It shows that it is a feasible adaptation option that
will also help absorb and store carbon, so it has mitigation potential and it
helps achieve multiple Sustainable Development Goals marked here with a plus.
Likewise, if we look at options in our cities, we see that green
infrastructure, green roofs, parks, and street trees play a part in helping us
adapt; by providing shade and water management, they also absorb and store
carbon. Again, they help with multiple UN goals. What we see here is the
foundation for a solutions framework that is an important new concept in this
report. Let's explore this now. If we look at this figure, we see a spectrum
of futures from a world with low resilience and high risk to one with higher
resilience and low risk. This high resilience low-risk future and world has
reduced climate risks through adaptation, reduced greenhouse gas emissions
through mitigation, and enhanced biodiversity. These measures together support
sustainable development, for example, no poverty, zero hunger, good health and
well-being, and access to clean water and sanitation. This concept is
climate-resilient development. >> Climate-resilient development has to be
considered across government and all of civil society; it should involve
everyone around the table, governments, citizens, communities, educational
institutions, the media, investors, and businesses forming partnerships.
Scientific, indigenous, and local knowledge and practical know-how come
together to provide more relevant, effective options. Ecosystem stewardship is
key. A healthy planet is fundamental to climate-resilient development.
Effective and equitable conservation of approximately 30-50% of land,
freshwater systems, and oceans can help ensure a healthy planet. Involving
traditionally marginalized groups, including women, young people, indigenous
peoples, local communities, and ethnic minorities, improves the prospects for
effective action. It's critical to prioritize equity and justice in
decision-making and investment. Different interests, values, and worldviews
can be reconciled if everyone works together. Scaled-up investment and
international cooperation are also important. Starting today, every action,
every choice, and every decision matters because each of them can take us away
from or towards a climate-resilient and sustainable world. Worldwide action to
achieve climate-resilient and sustainable development is more urgent than
previously assessed. >> Climate-resilient development is already challenging
at current global warming levels. The prospects will be further limited if
global warming exceeds 1.5 degrees Celsius, and may not be possible in some
regions, including small islands, deserts, mountains, and polar regions if
warming exceeds two degrees Celsius. The science is clear. Any further delay
in concerted global action where miss a brief and rapidly closing window to
secure a livable future. This report offers solutions to the world. This
presentation has given you a snapshot of a wide range of topics that are
covered in-depth in this report. It's over to you now. Thank you. >> Thank
you, Dr. Roberts and Dr. Portner for your presentation. We will now turn to
questions. Before we do that, just to note that in addition to the summary for
policymakers, the technical summary, and full report, we also have several
other resources, including a global to regional atlas. We have also extracted
critical regional information into a series of fact sheets. All these
materials are available on the IPCC website. To the questions now and for the
first one, I will be looking for a brief comments from both co-chairs. It's
from Seth Borenstein with the Associated Press. Can you address the sense of
gloom and foreboding in the future painted here? How less livable a world do
you see if major emission cuts and adaptations aren't made? And how big a
problem do you see climate migration and climate-connected conflict in 2040
and in 2100? Dr. Roberts? >> Thank you so much for that question. I would
rephrase that. I don't think the report gives the sense of gloom. What it does
do though it gives a very serious reality check about where we are, where we
might go to. But also it provides us with the sense that we can be agents for
change. If we look at the challenges that we are currently facing, a lot of
those can be addressed by creating a more equitable and sustainable world, by
developing a new social compact with the planet that we live on. And by
focusing our attention where we get most bang for the buck. Protecting nature
has been previously mentioned, but also using the opportunity to change the
places where the majority of people live in our cities. So I think that's the
important message to take forward, a difficult reality, but action is possible
and we need to do it now. >> Dr. Portner? >> Thank you. Adding to this is an
important aspect that the choice should not be gloom and doom. The options are
clear and the choices are clear. So the world has limited time-bound available
to move on the right track. And this understanding needs to evolve among
policymakers and among society. And I think what this indicates that we see
currently and inertia in implementation. And then we can at least see a large
implementation gap, is that this comes together with an education gap and an
information gap. So the collaboration of science and the media is important.
But what is also important is to improve the understanding of these basic
rules of how a pro-life best functions on our planet. And what is also
important that there are natural laws that we should not break. And that
should not be broken in similar ways as we do not cross right traffic slides
in our cities. This is, I think, a point of orientation and our report
provides that orientation. By following these options, it gives us hope that
the sustainable and climate-resilient world can be achieved. >> Thank you very
much. The next question is for Dr. Roberts. The report paints a grim prospect
for Africa and small islands, developing states. Other alternative solutions
for short and long term to alter direction from grim opportunities. >> Thank
you so much for that question. Indeed, as I said before, the report is a real
reality check and it's particularly a reality check for the developing areas
of the globe. Africa is called out the small island states, Asia, Central, and
South America. But there are also the prospects for dynamic change in those
areas. If we see, for example, a change in financial flows around the world
and investment in sustainable development in these areas. If we take bold
action in terms of emission reduction, then much can be done to reduce the
exposure and vulnerability of areas such as the small island states. Africa,
particularly where I come from, has an enormous opportunity in terms as very
rich natural heritage to take that and use that as an increased adaptive
capacity to deal with climate change, both its impacts, but also the impacts
that it has across our economies, across our development options. So I think
while these areas are threatened, there is no doubt that there is room for
improvement both in terms of global partnerships to foster sustainable
development, but also to use the enormous natural sources of continents like
Africa as a way to tackle the climate change challenge. >> Thank you very
much. Question for both co-chairs. This is from Thomson Reuters Foundation. If
increasingly clear warnings about the existential risks of climate change are
not driving anywhere near sufficient action. How do we drive that needed
action? Perhaps first to Dr. Portner and then to Dr. Roberts. Quick comments,
please. Thanks. >> Well, I'm afraid to say that increasing climate change and
the associated impacts and risks and their implementation are certainly an
important motivation for the mobilization we need in society and in policy. We
have seen that with the release of the 1.5 degrees Celsius report in 2018,
which was bringing climate change close to the individual on this planet. And
this has started mobilization that I think still needs to continue and still
needs to be strengthened. So calling out climate change as an ally in that
mobilization is certainly not a good perspective. We would rather like to see
the risks being reduced and those impacts being avoided. But climate change
already gives us strong examples of what can happen if the climate system is
bought out of the balance that it has had for the last 8,000 years during the
time when human civilization was built. In that respect, making and bringing
this close to the sinking of policymakers and also our society is, I think, an
important task that will need to be fulfilled. And this in-depth understanding
will mobilize the action and the resources that are needed for this task. >>
Perhaps just building on that response, I think what is powerful about our
working Group 2 Report, is that we speak to the very places that people live,
work, and relax in. We've got a very strong regional focus. And I think that
enables us to bring messaging that increases the agency of human society. You
will see that in this report, particularly we've got a very strong focus on
the issue of human settlements, urban areas, rural settlements, and
particularly in cities where the majority of people live. We speak directly to
the challenges that cities are facing now. The impacts on infrastructure, the
increase in the heat island effect, and the challenges that all of those pose
to human health and economic development. But we also lay out the solutions
that may be available to urban areas around the world to tackle those
challenges. And I think it's by providing that very clear line of sight
between where I live and the problems I face to the solutions I may be
involved in, empowers people to take action. And I think we see that more and
more as the science becomes clearer and relates more and more to people's
lives, people mobilize more. And so I'm still optimistic about the ability to
mobilize extensively around this report and create the societal response that
we need to see. >> Thank you very much. >> Just to add to this once more.
Andrei, I'm sorry for interrupting you. Any short-term action and any
compromise with respect to other sectors. And compromises are an important
part of the political thinking and action, should have the long-term
implications in mind. Should consider the orientation, for example, that our
report provides in terms of what are the implication for the long-term future
if things go wrong in the short term. And this emphasizes the sort about the
closing window of opportunity. So any decisions to be made during this crucial
decade in climate policy are important for our long-term fate and were for the
sustainability of life on this planet. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for
that response. The next question is for the Secretary-General of the World
Meteorological Organization. It is from Thomson Reuters Foundation. The
question is the report makes clear that soft limits to adaptation are being
reached already, including due to a lack of finance, despite the urgency. Can
this report finally shift the needle in terms of sparing more adaptation
finance to the vulnerable? And if so, how? >> Thank you for that question.
It's clear that we have to invest more in adaptation, besides mitigation.
Mitigation is of course essential and we have to stop this negative trend in
climate, and that's very urgent as also this report echoes. But besides that,
we have to start investing in adaptation because the negative trend in climate
will continue until 2060 independent of our success in climate mitigation. And
the work in Group 1 report which was published past August, was demonstrating
that the sea level rise and melting of the glaciers may continue for the
coming hundreds of years. So that means that we have partly already lost the
battle and we have to pay more attention to how to mitigate climate related
risks. And this has to be taken into account in various sectors in the
society. It's going to affect food security. It's going to affect the
infrastructures. It's going to affect health, and it's going to hit the also
economies very hard. It was already demonstrated by the Goldstone report 15
years ago that it's up to 20 times cheaper to mitigate climate sense than to
live with the consequences. And now we are already facing these consequences
and they will become stronger during the coming decades anyhow. And one
powerful way to add up to climate science is to invest in early warning
services, which are fairly poor say in less developed countries. And we have
also major gaps in the basic observing systems, especially in Africa,
Caribbean, and Pacific Islands which means that the early warning services,
the quality is poor there. And we don't know where to add up to because we
don't have the baseline so that we have to invest in what the basic observing
systems and early warning services and take adaptation into account in many
sectors as this report is emphasizing. >> Thank you very much for that
response. The next question is for the chair of the IPCC, Dr. Hoesung Lee, as
well as for Dr. Roberts. The question is from South China Morning Post. The
question is the report mentioned Asia's risks and adaptation options to
climate change. How do you assess China's resistance to the risks of
water-related natural hazards, energy and security and asset losses as
mentioned in the report. >> IPCC is an intergovernmental panel on climate
change issues and we are not in the position of commenting on specifically our
member governments policies and programs. And thus if Dr. Roberts to add,
please go ahead. >> Thank you very much for that question. If we look at the
information we provide on the area of Asia generally, we can see that we've
already got millions of people in places like Asia which are subject to acute
food and water challenges in the prison. So this is not a forward-looking
issue. We have millions of people all ready affected by acute food and water
shortages now in places like Asia. And if we think about a world of two
degrees of global warming, then we know that under those conditions, even
areas where we are capable of growing staple crops now will become unavailable
for cultivation. And so we can see the rate of challenge is going to increase
as every element of global warming increases the level of risk to which we are
exposed, the range of impacts that we have to deal with. And so Asia, like
many parts of the world, will have to deal with severe and current food and
water crisis going forward. And that's the importance of adaptation. We need
to think about new ways of dealing with these problems. And our report talks
to those solutions, new ways of cultivation, new crop types, thinking about
how we conserve our water resources and we know particularly Asia is critical
because they have the water towers of the world in the mountains. And so
thinking about those mountain ecosystems and the conservation of those
ecosystems is important. But that's scale of intervention is only possible if
we've got governance that allows all levels of activity to be coordinated, if
we've got adequate financial support and civil society is brought to the table
in order to participate in finding solutions. >> Thank you very much for that.
The next question, again, quick responses from both co-chairs. The question is
from our newspapers in Barcelona, the Group 1 report said that we are going to
reach 1.5 degrees Celsius no matter what before 2040. And in the better case
scenario, we may reduce it after that. Then your predictions about extinction
of species when we reach 1.5 degrees Celsius will be reached before 2040 for
sure. What are the scenarios after that? Dr. Portner first and perhaps then
Dr. Roberts. >> Thank you very much for that question. Certainly, we have
considered overshoot scenarios in our report and have also considered their
time duration and they would last several decades until end of century before
the temperature would be falling again. And during that time spend we expect
the same level of impact as if we would have a stabilized level of increased
warming at higher temperatures. It is fully in line with the statement that
every bit of warming matters, so moving towards overshoot scenarios is not a
safe heaven that this strategy might promise. It will also lead to
irreversible consequences. The melting of polar ice sheets will be increased.
Sea level rise will be increased. The loss of habitat and species with the
potential for local extinction patterns will also increase. And there is an
increasing risk associated with those higher temperatures of species losses
entirely as we have projected in the report that this increase is occurring in
terms of the percent of species increasing with increasing degrees of warming
over this overshoot. This excludes going for overshoot as a valid strategy in
climate mitigation. >> I think an important addition to that and really the
core DNA of the story we tell in the working Group 2 report is how closely
human and natural systems are interconnected. And as Hans has pointed out, we
have systems such as mountain tops, coral reefs and others, coastal wetlands,
which will be challenged in a scenario of overshoot. And this is critical
because we're not only talking about the loss of ecosystems, we are talking
about the loss of ecosystems that are absolutely critical to underpinning the
livelihoods, often off the most vulnerable in the world. And so this really
raises the profile of the adaptation agenda because we need to think about not
only how we adapt to those changes in ecosystems, are there things we can do
by increasing conservation areas in management, looking for a future, but what
do we do with the human societies that are impacted by these changes. And
again, this talks to the need to tie in our climate change response to a
strong development response so that vulnerable communities have social safety
nets. We put in place basic infrastructure. We think about realignment of
financial resources. And so our report really speaks to this complex
interrelationships of problems that we all need to get around the table to
solve. >> Thank you very much. Dr. Roberts, the next question is for you also,
you mentioned cities being key sites for positive climate action. What are
some of the most effective systems and strategies you have seen work
practically on a city-wide level. And what enhances their efficacy? >> There
is no doubt that cities offer us an important global scaled but time limited
opportunity to act to increase our adaptive capacity. The majority of us
already live in urban areas and cities, and certainly by the middle of the
century, two-thirds of us will be living in urban areas. The opportunities in
urban areas are multiple around planning and design of infrastructure,
bringing nature back into the city. So often we've thought about nature as
something that occurs outside city borders. But our report points out very
clearly that if we bring nature back into the city, protect our floodplains,
have trees along our streets. We can do a great deal to increase our adaptive
of capacity to deal with impacts of floods, heat stress, improve health. And
so there's a real advantage and reconceptualizing our cities not only as a
place of people, but a place of nature. We also need to know though, that
amongst our cities there's a subset, the coastal cities. And we know that we
will have about a billion people living in low lying coastal areas by the
middle of the century that are particularly at risk. And they are particularly
at risk because of the impacts of sea level rise, salinization, flooding,
heavy rainfall. And those are areas we would probably need to act on initially
because they are areas of high economic activity, connectivity to inland
areas, and because of the range of risks they are exposed to. And in those
areas, we would need to think, for example, about coastal defenses, moving
away from hard seawalls to more productive coastal ecosystems. Early warning
systems to enable people to know when risks are emerging and to make suitable
plans to factor in that we need good governance. And that if one once decent
responses to the challenges that many of these areas would face, we have to
have everyone around the table agreeing on the plans and this includes the
most vulnerable. And the report is really important because it focuses us not
only on the formal aspects of urban development, because of very strongly the
informal settlements around the world where many of the most vulnerable live
and calls for a specific focus on these and a call to start investing in our
informal settlements to change the tide both literally and figuratively. >>
Thank you, Dr. Roberts. Next one for Dr. Portner. This is from CNN, with
everything going on, how would you like this report to be interpreted and
prioritized by policymakers and the world at large. And what do you expect
from journalists to help keep the momentum going in the coming months and
years. >> Thank you very much for this important question. The report talks
about the impacts risks. It also talks about all possibilities to adapt and
brings those solution options to the fore, talking also about the
effectiveness and their feasibility. But most importantly, we also talked
about maladaptation and we talked about adaptation limits. And these
adaptation limits, together with the information about risk, provide
orientation for the action of policymakers and also which future to go for.
And this report strengthens the message around the agreement reached with the
Paris agreement and it strengthens to move and push for the more ambitious
side of it by casting light on the most vulnerable ecosystems on the planet,
on the most vulnerable people on the planet. And also on the challenges that
actually for some species and also for humans, we are starting to lose habitat
in the most exposed areas of the planet which are close to the equator. In the
ocean, we're already seeing a development of a biodiversity valley and as a
consequence of species moving towards the poles. There are also some area on
the planet that represent environmental conditions where people can no longer
be outside. And this is representing the same for our species as for others
loss of habitat. So these trends will be strengthened with climate change, and
I think continued communication between scientists and the media, as well as
policymakers, is needed to bring those such information to the fore and, as I
said, to provide the information for ambitious action. And when I talk about
action, I mean action along various lines that consider the interactions
between nature, human society and the climate system, and correct for the
current imbalances that we see in these interactions due to the changing
climate we are currently observing. In terms of motivating policymakers, I
think it needs a mix of actions. As I said in the short term, the information
flow from science to policymakers and carried forward through the media,
emphasized by the media, also the media reporting from the societal engagement
and mobilization that is happening is key. But there is also urgency in
developing the education systems, both the lower and higher education systems
towards aspects and curricula that consider these existential challenges to
humankind, which will be with us for decades and maybe even centuries to come.
And educating the young and informing the adult population about these
challenges will be key for ambitious global action. Thank you. >> Thank you
very much for that response. The next question is from la Repubblica for Dr.
Roberts. Do you think individual change, that means change of way of life, is
important at the same level of government and corporation, or people have to
wait before a strong commitment at an institutional level first? Thank you. >>
Thank you so much for that important question because it speaks to each one of
us and the way we live our lives. And I think our report is very clear. It
indicates that this has to be a whole of society response, not a single
individual community, sati, or government can opt out. We all need to opt in
to the solution. And a key part of that is obviously the way we live our
lives, the choices we make about how we live those lives, but importantly, how
we use our sense of agency in the world, how we engage with governance
processes, how we engage with leadership in our communities, the priorities we
express about the world we want to see which will influence policies. So all
of this is critical. The individual can play a vital role through the choices
and actions they take and make in their lives. There are many things that
individuals cannot change and that rely on governments at all levels, local,
provincial, regional, national, international to act. And we need that to be
concerted. But again, governments by themselves can't act to learn and we must
see the private sector coming to the table as well. And so it requires all of
us to be playing our part in different ways, but ensuring that those actions
are fully integrated. I think this is what has been very clearly made as a
point in our report, is that while action is happening, it's not rapid enough
and it's uneven. So various elements of society are acting, others aren't, and
we're not acting fast enough. And so it's a really strong core for all of us
to start doing the heavy lifting that's going to ensure a just equitable world
and ensure that we have a sustainable planet for many generations to come. >>
Thank you very much for that response. The next question is from ThePrint in
India. It's for both co-chairs, so I'll be looking for quick responses there.
The report talks about maladaptation. How can countries prevent maladaptation
in the long run while also addressing short-term needs? What factors must
policy takers consider at the planning stage? Dr. Portner and then Dr.
Roberts. >> Thank you for this important question, and we saw examples of this
on the slide as far as building of coastal defenses is concerned. And it comes
also to a point that I made earlier that for any short-term decision and
consideration and possible compromise between strategies, the long-term
implications need to be considered. For example, if you develop strategies
that meet the short-term food requirements of the local population but enhance
ecosystem degradation and also the soil and land degradation, you may meet the
needs of the immediate adult and young population. But you hold the
sustainability there and you bring the food sources to an end for the next
generations. Another example is the building of coastal defenses that I've
just referred to. If you build a hard seawalls, you are, with increasing sea
level rise, taking space away for the natural ecosystems that may help you.
The white floodplains, the salt marshes or mangrove forests that would
contribute to coastal protection would have only a narrow area available to
them to begin with and then this area would shrink continually. And then there
will be a point with increasing sea level where the question is to what extent
and how high can you actually build those seawalls? So there will be, in that
case, abrupt adaptation limits which then expose the local population to
extreme events such as intensive flooding and so forth. So that shows the
challenges of combining information from climate projections in that aspect,
sea level rise projections, and the local action to be taken to protect
ecosystems and the population and develop an integrated approach. This also
argues to bridge between silos from a more general and global perspective to
just do climate mitigation, as is currently in the focus of many developed
countries, reducing emissions, and to not also consider the needs to protect
nature and its capacity to enhance carbon storage. That would also and can
also lead to maladaptation strategies and potentially to the loss of the
capacity of ecosystems to help mitigation. Thank you. >> I think a very
important point to add to what Hans just just said is, I think, the overall
global message that's coming out of the IPCC and this assessment cycle is that
the world we live in today is not going to be the world we live in five years,
10 years, or even 20 years from now. And therefore, we have to be much more
vigilant about our actions. And so certainly something that may increase our
adaptive capacity today may be seen as a good adaptation option today, may not
be so 10 years from now or 20 years from now. And that really speaks to the
fact that we need processes that allow us to monitor and evaluate the impacts
of our adaptation interventions in a variety of sectors across various
elements and scales of our society. And that really speaks to a new
partnership, again, between policy and science to enable that monitoring and
evaluation, but probably most importantly again, speaks to a new social
compact that sees the most vulnerable groups being drawn to the table because
our report very clearly indicates that the groups most impacted by
maladaptation, all the vulnerable societies around the world, the vulnerable
communities, those who have informal settlements, those who live in vulnerable
areas. And it's really critical if we are to monitor and evaluate not only to
take a scientific perspective on the impacts of our interventions, but also to
hear from the grassroots, from the people who are experiencing the impacts of
these interventions to determine whether they're having the effect that is
desired or in fact if they are becoming maladaptation. So again, it speaks to
the fact that we can't have a linear approach to these problems. We need to be
talking to everyone, to have them around the table, and to be using all of our
strengths to take the world forward. >> Thank you very much. We have about 15
minutes left. So next question again for Dr. Roberts. What is the role of
agriculture production on the scenario presented by the report, are South
American crops at the risk? >> Obviously, agricultural production is a very
important concern to Working Group II, because that links back to well-being,
and livelihoods, and economies. What we do indicate is that, given the current
impacts that we're seeing from climate change in the here and now, as we've
indicated before, we're already experiencing acute food and water shortages in
places like Central and South America, Asia, the small island states. And so
this is a real problem now. What we know is that problem is going to escalate
again in places like Central and South America. If we look at two degrees of
global warming, we know that areas that are currently growing staple crops,
will not be able to grow those at the same level of efficiency and
effectiveness. And so there are significant challenges coming for areas like
South America, Africa, Asia, in terms of overall food production. >> Thank you
very much. Next question is more on the process, and I'll direct it to the
Secretary of the IPCC. Can you please elaborate on how the crisis in Ukraine
has affected the last week climate negotiations between countries, and how do
you look at publishing this report during this crisis? >> For this question,
that IPCC session are closed session. They are designated in this way to allow
frank and transparent discussion between the government and scientists.
Because of this closed nature of this approval session, we are not discussing
or paying attention to the president's attendance or any participants for
delegation, this is something is closed. And yes of course, we are keeping on
track list of the participants, and we will provide the whole list of the
participants in the report of discplinary session. >> Thank you very much.
Next question is from The Washington Post, and it's for both co-chairs. You
have spoken about the numerous mitigation and technology options that are
already available to society, and how political will is the major barrier to
transformation. What does the Working Group II report tell us, about how to
build the political will that is necessary for change. Dr. Roberts, and then
Dr. Portner. >> Thank you for that important question. And in fact, this is
not a new message for the IPCC. That message was made very clear in the
Special Report of 1.5 degrees Celsius, that infected societal and political
will, which is the major challenge in moving forward towards a more resilient
and sustainable present and future for everyone around the world. What we look
at in terms of Working Group II, is how that support for change is bought. So
we speak to the need for institutions that are inclusive, that are
well-funded. We speak to the need for participation in decision-making, so
welcoming groups to the table, particularly the vulnerable, as I've indicated
before. We speak to the need for various levels of government to interact with
one another, to create the environment that facilitates change. So for
example, national government creating the policy framework for local
government to act, but also the appropriate flow of financial resources to
enable that. But ultimately, political and societal will is determined by what
each of us as individuals prioritize as important in our lives. So over and
above the structural changes that are needed in terms of government
cooperation , flow of finance, it's important that we ourselves educate
ourselves about the challenges we face, and make those priorities known more
broadly in society and to our leadership, in order to encourage the political
will that's necessary to take the bold and rapid action required in this
decade. >> Thank you. And to add to the answer that Debra has given, I think
in the context of climate resilient development, the cross-sectoral
collaboration in governance and between institutions, is an important element
that can enable a stronger action, and also can provide motivation to take
action, being aware of problems in other sectors where one's own sector can
possibly contribute. And we have developed a picture in this report, how such
integration and co-sector collaboration can happen. Also, the view of the
international just of the local and vulnerable elements in one's own society
could provide motivation. But also looking at the international situation
where we clearly lay out that multi-national and international collaboration,
is an essential element in making progress in this climate arena. This also
concerns a global move to, for example, remove subsidies from fossil fuels.
And the current crisis could actually lead, and this is already entering the
political discussion in my own country, to the avoidance of dependencies on
the suppliers of fossil fuels. In situations of political instability, and
supporting the establishment of renewables in enhancing their fraction in
energy provision, could increase the independence in that sense. So there are
motivations that come from various sides, but the most important pillar
certainly is and has been the mobilization of the young generation that we
have seen, somewhat surprisingly, but it was a very pleasant surprise after
the release of the 1.5 report, where taking up the crucial information on
climate change and its future challenges by the young generation, and their
concern about the future, is and has been a very strong lever for political
shifts that we have seen in some countries, including my own. Thank you. >>
Thank you very much for that. The next question is for the IPCC chair, Dr. Lee
and Dr. Portner. The results of the Working Group II analysis are not so
surprising, since it is natural to believe that continued climate change
brings more serious impacts on ecosystems and damages and losses. So what is
in your view, the real scientific value of the report, and its impact on
policies? Dr. Lee. >> Thank you very much. It's a very important question and
I believe the Hans will give a more detailed answer to this, but overall, this
assessment for the first time assesses in very detail the impact of a
temporary overshoot. And the report clearly indicates that there will be some
impacts that will be irreversible, even if the temperature will return to 1.5
at the end of the century, and that is one of the major findings of this
report, as well as, this report, has already mentioned, identifies 127 key
risks and then shows how those key risks change along the temperature gradient
changes. These are quite new messages that this report can deliver compared to
our last reports. Hans. >> Thank you very much [inaudible 01:26:51] and thanks
a lot for this important question. Clearly, this report, if you'll just see it
as a linear extrapolation of the last report on impacts and risks, the
information may not be so surprising, although certainly the scientific basis
for extrapolating is very solid and is also very important in terms of the
possibilities and progress made in terms of attributing these impacts, for
example, due to extreme events to human activities. I think there the working
1 report and the working 2 report, come together closely. Another advance that
our report offers is really a systems understanding, an integrative
understanding, how the different lines of evidence come together. There was
one figure in the slide presentation which was in rather straightforward ways,
bringing forward the interactions between the human systems, the climate
systems and biodiversity. Biodiversity providing ecosystem services and how
human society currently is causing the imbalanced by causing climate change or
greenhouse gas emissions, and thereby the impact feedbacks on the natural and
the human systems. By shifting that balance in interactions and from a systems
point of view, this emerges as an underpinning framework for the concept of
climate resilient development, which was already there, yes, during the fifth
assessment report, but is much more comprehensively developed in our present
report. It talks about the resilience for ecosystems as well as the resilience
for human systems and it shows in that argumentation, that going for a
combination of human health, ecosystem health, and finally, at the highest
complexity level, planetary health, is actually giving us hope for the future
and should provide a vision and an orientation for concerted actions across
the globe. >> Thank you very much. We will take just another two questions
given the time. The first one is from Newsfirst in Sri Lanka. Question is for
Dr. Roberts. What are the IPCC's recommendations including the local and
indigenous knowledge to find more effective solutions to tackle climate
change? >> Thank you so much and that's such an important question because
certainly one of the new elements of this particular assessment is a much
stronger focus on indigenous communities, local knowledge, traditional
knowledge, as a way of understanding the world that we live in. And so there's
a very strong pointer to the fact that where we engage with indigenous
communities and peoples, where we consider local knowledge, that really
empowers us not only to frame the questions we're asking in a more relevant
way, but to develop answers that are more comprehensive, that are more
inclusive, and allows us to better understand the response options we have
available to us. So this, I think, is an exciting move for the scientific
community. Acknowledging that there are many forms and ways of knowing the
world, that there are many knowledges in the world. And so we've tried very
strongly to bring forward the perspectives of indigenous communities, bring
forward the input of local knowledge in informing the solution options that
are available. But the bottom line, there is no doubt that indigenous
knowledge and local knowledge is critical to understanding the world, critical
to understanding the way we respond to the climate change challenge, and
critical to finding solutions. And therefore, these communities, absolutely,
must be at the table when we're talking about the climate change response, and
they must be at the table when we're deciding what action we'll take. >> Thank
you very much. The last question is from the Financial Times for both
co-chairs. So again, I'll be looking for short answers there. We are already
at 1:30. Could you explain why the phrasing in the summary for policymakers is
losses and damages rather than loss and damage, which is used in the
underlying literature and full report? And if that is different to the
language in the summary for policymakers, why it is different. Dr. Portner and
then Dr. Roberts. >> Thanks a lot for this important question. Certainly, the
content of our report and the summary for policymakers is very close to
political interests and to political debate. And we build on the information
in the scientific literature without really crossing the line into the policy
arena, without really developing policy prescriptive language or wanting to
get entangled in political debates between the global north and the global
south or considering country interests. That is why we are developing a more
policy neutral language and using the important information on losses and
damages as they result from impacts and also from risk projections for the
future in a more policy neutral way. To make this clear, we have used the
wording that the reporters have rightly observed and it helps us to bring this
into a more policy neutral but very policy relevant language. That is my take
on this [inaudible 01:33:06]. >> I think it's a very important term because it
allows us to understand the full spectrum of the challenge that we face. So we
use the term losses and damages really to speak to adverse impacts, both in
the present but also potential futurists. But it talks to a scenario where we
can draw forward not only economic impacts, but non economic impacts, so
losses and damages. It gives us a sense of this adaptation, but there are
potential scenarios, as we've indicated, where we may have maladaptation,
where adaptation may not be effective, it may not be fast enough or at scale,
and then we have to deal with the results of losses and damages. But that
phrasing, as I say, allows us not only to think about the loss of
infrastructure, the loss of people's lives, but the non economic losses that
may come from loss of culture, loss of language, loss of livelihoods, losses
of places where people live. So it allows us to adopt a more comprehensive
view of the challenges that we have to face as society. >> Thank you very
much. This brings us to the end of today's press conference. Let me just say
thank you to all of the representatives of the media who have been with us
today. We have answered as many questions as possible. There are many more
questions and we will be answering them in the hours, days, and weeks to come.
I would like to also thank all of the panelists at today's press conference
and for their time and dedication and providing substantive answers to the
questions that were posed to them. I would also like to stress to the
representatives of the media that the Working Group III report, which is
looking into the mitigation of climate change, is scheduled to be released in
early April. We will be communicating with you soon about that. In the
meantime, thank you all, take care, and see you soon. >> Hello, and thank you
for joining us. My name is Adam Smith and it's my great pleasure to be your
guide to this Nobel Prize Dialogue entitled United by Science. To start things
off, we're going to have some words of welcome. And first, I'm very pleased to
introduce Laura Sprechmann, Chief Executive Officer of Nobel Prize Outreach.
>> Thank you, Adam. On behalf of Nobel Prize Outreach, I would like to welcome
you all to this Nobel Prize Dialogue.  FOREIGN  Humanity is facing serious
challenges. Take health or climate for example. This has shown us this
difficult period we're living through and have been living through how
important science, research, and collaboration are for us all. Today, 80
students from 24 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean will gather to
discuss how science can contribute to society, and how society can contribute
to science. They will be meeting five Nobel Prize laureates to discuss this.
These five Nobel Prize Laureates are Elizabeth Blackburn, Emmanuelle
Charpentier, Ben Feringa, May-Britt Moser, and Saul Perlmutter. Dear
Laureates, thank you so much for putting all your commitment into speaking
with this group of brilliant students. Dear students, take this opportunity to
think, to learn, and to discuss, not only with the Laureates, but also with
your peers and to hopefully continue that discussion after the session in
terms of many long-term collaborations among all of you. I heard that that
conversation already has started and I'm very happy about that. To finalize, I
would like to thank Helena Nader and Luiz Davidovich at the Brazilian Academy
of Sciences. Jeremy McNeil from IANAS, the InterAmerican Network of Academies
of Sciences. Also of course, to all the members of the IANAS. To our dear
Nobel International partners, 3M, ABB, Capgemini, Ericsson, and Scania. To my
dear colleagues for all the fantastic work you're doing. And not least to you,
Jakob Rubenson, our great producer who has managed to bring us all together.
Together, united by science. Thank you so much  FOERIGN  Enjoy. >> So as Laura
mentions, is this is a partnership with institutes in the Americas. And in a
moment, we're going to hear from the co-chairs of IANAS, the InterAmerican
Network of Academies of Sciences that Laura mentioned, Jeremy McNeil from
Canada, and Helena Nader from Brazil. But first, it's my pleasure to introduce
the President of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences Luiz Davidovich. >> Hello.
I'm Luiz Davidovich, president of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences. The
Brazilian Academy of Sciences is thankful to the Nobel Outreach and to IANAS
for their partnership in this very important event. We also thank the Nobel
laurates for participating in this dialogue. Latin American and Caribbean face
common challenges, and we must unite by science in order to seize the
opportunities and tackle the problems that affect this region of world. The
rich biodiversity, the extensive hydric resources, the rich cultural and and
ethnical diversity coexist with strong inequality, deficient education, and
the destruction of biomes. This Nobel dialogue, which I'm sure will be a great
event, is a powerful instrument to motivate the leaders of tomorrow to engage
with science. Science changes the world. Thank you all for your participation.
>> Hello. My name is Jeremy McNeil. I'm a behavioral ecologist who works on
insects. I'm also the president of the Royal Society of Canada and the
co-chair of IANAS. There's no question that globally we're faced with many
problems today, and there is no question that science will be a major part of
looking for the solutions. Therefore, IANAS is absolutely delighted to join
with the Brazilian Academy of Science and the Nobel Prize Outreach
Organization to bring together some of the leaders of tomorrow with several
Nobel laureates under the banner United by Science. I would like to thank both
the Nobel laureates and the young scientists who are participating in what I
am convinced will be an outstanding event. Thank you all for your
participation and have a wonderful time today. Thank you. >> Hello, I'm Helena
Nader co-chair of IANAS, and I'm glad to welcome you all to this great event
of the Nobel Prize Dialogue. Latin American and the Caribbean in partnership
with the Brazilian Academy of Science and the InterAmerican Network of
Academies of sciences. Initially I want to thank each academy for the support
to put this program together. As already mentioned by my collogues Luiz
Davidovich and Jeremy McNeil, 80 undergraduate and graduate students
representing 24 countries in the region are going to discuss with five Nobel
Laureate on issues that include the responsibilities of the scientists, the
power of collaboration, the strategies for building bridges with policymakers
and society in general and the wider societal implication of all these things.
Science is fundamental for the social, sustainable, and economic development
of societies. The debate may bring common strategies to combat the great
challenges in which Latin American and the Caribbean are immersed from climate
change to political instability passing through many inequalities and the
effects of this long COVID-19 pandemic. Thank you so much to all of you, and I
pass the word to you, Adam. >> Thank you, Helena. And now let's get on with
the first discussion. So Liz Blackburn, Saul Perlmutter, Ben Feringa,
Emmanuelle Charpentier, welcome to you all. Now you have all been involved
earlier in the week in discussions with this wonderful group of students from
across Latin America and the Caribbean. And now we have the chance to explore
what you thought of those sessions. So let's start with you, Saul. What was it
like meeting this group of 16, 17 students from all over the region? >> It's
always just a pleasure to hear the engagement and the enthusiasm that
everybody has when they start out. And then of course, it's also a very clear
that everybody's concerned about how do our careers work and how do we help
our societies manage in the complexities of the world that we see and
political worlds that they find themselves in. For me, it was a great starting
point. >> Because of course, the discussions were to explore the very broad
theme of how can we make the most of science and scientists, and Helena Nader
in her introduction mentioned many of the topics that we touched upon, it's a
broad canvas that we covered in those discussions. We began with the topic of
really what it takes to be a scientist. Liz, How did you find the discussions?
>> I found them wonderful. What a wonderful group of young scientists and I
felt very lucky to be talking with them. And as usual, it cheers me up because
I think the world may not be in such bad shape when we have such terrific
young people who are a source and fully engaged in science. And so, I thought
it was very interesting because when we talked about responsibilities, some of
the discussion really went into situations where if you can't really be in
control of various things and you're trying to do your science and there are
pressures on you to get different kinds of results, what do you do? So these
are very real-world questions. That was one of the terrific topics that I
particularly was struck by with this group of young scientists. >> Thank you,
Liz. Emmanuelle, how did you find it? >> As the same, it was very refreshing
and always a pleasure to discuss with students from Latin America. For sure,
one can appreciate very faster their concerns with regards to the poor
infrastructure for doing research in their countries compared to Europe , Asia
or America. There is also I think important that they raise also their
concerns and specifically with regard to the fear of not being able to combine
research or carry on research and private life or family life. For sure the
concerns that there are a lot of challenges in the world right now and that
they feel very a bit stuck in a system where they don't see within themselves
evolving and being able to make the difference. I think it's various complex
issues, but at least, what was very enjoyable it was here, how much they were
enthusiastic and I saw that their questions were terrific. And I thought it
was extremely well prepared. And I think I was very surprised to which extent
this group of young scientists were really prepared, asking the right
question, there was a very nice flow in the way they were also interacting. I
was very impressed. >> And Ben, it would be lovely to hear your thoughts too,
just to get us started. >> Thank you, Adam. I must have to first say that I
had a very stimulating and pleasant one-and-a-half hours discussion with the
students. It was really a feast to discuss with them, because the level of
questions, as this was already mentioned by Emmanuelle, I think was really
high. I was really impressed how they were prepared. And honestly, after the
session, I felt a little bit sorry that I was not a student anymore in the
beginning of my career, because I was confronted with his enthusiasment
spirit, and now, after all those decades, I know what it is to be a scientist,
and also going through the frustrations and so. And these came up also during
the discussion. Of course, it's not only glitter, you have also the periods
that things don't work. How to do research, how to build a program, but also
how to deal with uncertainties, etc. This is all part of being a scientist.
But what really struck me, is that they had questions and discussions, not
only about the scientific issues, but also about ethical issues, how to
forward science in the context of current politics, especially also in South
America, of course, where the level of funding probably for science is not
what we expect of what we see in Europe or in the United States or in Asia. So
I was really amazed by the spirit of the young people at the beginning of
their career. >> So the discussions took many strands. Part of it was focused
very much on the business of just getting on with your own science, and how
you make the right decisions for yourself as a scientist. And those concerns,
of course, are common to scientists all over the world. Did any of you spot
anything different about the way that these group of scientists from the
Americas, were asking those questions that differentiated them from groups of
students in Asia or Europe or anywhere else where you meet students? Is there
anything that springs to mind that was particularly different about the way
they did science? Anyone? >> Maybe I might reflect this. Maybe not so much
about the way to do science, but to get the opportunity to experience what we
have in a scientific family. Because I think in Europe, for instance, we were
discussing this, we have Marie Curie programs, and all these programs, where
we exchange students and they get this international experience, etc. And this
is so crucial for young students to have these opportunities, that they can go
to conferences or to a different laboratory or whatever, when you are a master
student, or a PhD or whatever. And I realized that this was a point of concern
for several of the students, which I hear less in Europe when I discuss with
students. Because they know there are many of these programs at all, luckily
for the European students. And I think if we can do something for the students
in South and Middle America to help them to get more engaged with the global
scientific community, I would be happy to help there. >> Can I add something
too. Along the same lines, one of the students brought up the question of open
access and how the financial burden is placed upon the authors, and for people
who are in situations where funding is very tight. They said spending a couple
of thousand dollars just upfront to get something published is really
prohibitive and inhibitory. And so we discussed both very immediate, but also
really the necessity for systemic changes in the open access movement, while
very welcome, has shifted the burden, as we all know, to authors, and that is
disproportionately hard on those whose funding situations is very limited, as
was the case where the number of people on my discussion group. >> Liz, you
read my mind. That was a beautiful segue, in fact, into a very short video
piece of Yasmin from Guatemala raising exactly that question you were
referring to. And it would be nice to hear from her. Let's play the video from
Yasmin. >> I wanted to talk a little bit about science publishing. I think
that's a very important topic and well, and now many journals are moving
towards the open-access, which is very expensive. And we're talking about
united science, but it seems that developing countries are being left out the
system. So we will have more access to scientific literature, but
opportunities to publish will be reduced and severely impacted. So what do you
think we can do to change these or to just reduce bias in scientific
publications? Or do we have to always rely on science being done elsewhere? >>
That's a very stark and worrying comment , that closing statement. So Liz, you
were in conversation with Yasmin. How did the conversation develop? >> Well, I
had some thoughts, but I actually would be interested since you said we have
to have dialogue here, I'd be interested in hearing what the other laureates
say when confronted with this question. Because I'm not sure all my answers
were as complete as they could be. So could I throw the question, Adam? >> I'd
love you to throw the question, please. >> And I think I'm going to be
recorded on this previous one anyway, so you can access what I said. >> Saul,
your broad smile means you are first. >> I was just thinking in the big
picture that science has such a strong tradition of international cooperation,
and it is such the possibilities of science pay back everybody when it's done
in an open international forum. And I think that we have not been able to tell
that story as well as we could, to all the funding sources, which tend to be
in the wealthy countries. And they tend to think of it as if it were a
zero-sum game. If they keep their resources close at home and fund everything
happening in their own country, that's the best for them. And I just think
it's a mistake. I think that if we were able to convey that sense that almost
every program should be available to people from countries that don't have the
resources to do it themselves, I think it'll benefit all of us. And it's also
just the cultural aspect that science can provide the whole world at the same
time. So for me, I think if we somehow are able to tell that story better in
our own, in every one of the wealthy countries so that there's a better
understanding of this is not a zero-sum game. This is something where the more
we develop everywhere in the world, the better off we all will be, I think
maybe there will be some possibility of shared resources for countries that
cannot afford these publications