The Guardian on the IPCC warning: the last chance to save the planet

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

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

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

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

Editorial, The Guardian