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

Isabella Kaminski, Climate Home News

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

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

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

An editorial in the Guardian writes that "Germany's internal combustion engine defense is a disastrous signal in the race to meet net zero targets". It begins: “Germany's pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP) has long been an uncompromising defender of Europe's largest domestic car industry. A few years ago, she campaigned against proposals to introduce a national speed limit on motorways, which would help reduce CO2 emissions in Germany. However, as a coalition partner in the government led by Olaf Scholz's Social Democrats, he is taking environmental obstructionism to a new level. The FDP is the driving force behind German opposition to Brussels' plans to ban the sale of new cars with internal combustion engines from 2035. Until this month, the date was seen as a done deal and is an important pillar of the EU's strategy to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. But Germany is now insisting that the European Commission offer an exemption and allow carmakers to continue making these engines if they find a way to supply carbon-neutral "e-fuels" to power them. The highly technical nature of this debate may obscure its dangerous implications for Europe's climate ambitions.” The editorial concludes: “Given its wealth and industrial history, Europe bears a special responsibility in the fight to limit global warming. Hard times have undoubtedly made the policy of meeting net-zero emissions commitments more difficult and given an opportunity, especially to the populist right. But the response cannot be to delay and weaken the necessary measures in the hope that some new technology will emerge to solve the problem, Mr. Micawber-style. As a cold political wind begins to blow, there is an urgent need to defend the pace and necessity of Europe's ecological transformation." A Times editorial focusing on China-Russia relations states that "The West must find new ways to win the trust of developing countries, and also through practical assistance in areas such as medicine, green technologies and development financing".

Meanwhile, in other comments, the Daily Mail devotes an entire page to climate skeptic Ross Clark (who is promoting a new book on the subject) to attack the "hysterical language" of the new IPCC report. The Financial Times has a 'big read' titled: 'Solar power: Europe tries to get out of China's shadow'. Finally, Bloomberg published an investigation with the headline: "Consumers foot the bill for traders 'manipulating' UK energy market". The article begins as follows: “Traders from firms including Vitol's VPI, Uniper SE and SSE Plc have frequently announced that they will reduce power capacity ahead of peak evening periods – sometimes with only a few hours' notice. At the same time, they offered power from their plants in a special secondary market where they charged higher prices to cover the shortfalls they helped create... In response to detailed questions, most of the firms featured in this article provided brief statements saying they were in compliance.”

Editorial, The Guardian, Carbon Brief

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

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

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

Isabella Kaminski, Climate Home News, Carbon Brief

The suicidal mission of the European Union in the area of reducing CO emissions₂ it will have no meaning from a global point of view. The EU produces approximately ten percent of global emissions - even if we were to get to zero, which is impossible due to the nature of natural biological processes alone, the world's climate will not even notice it.

Europe will just liquidate its industry, hand itself over to imports - most likely from China, and at the same time lose resources that could be invested, for example, in real nature protection, the restoration of ecosystems, which by their natural functioning bind atmospheric carbon dioxide and reduce the temperature of the environment.

These efforts, which over time are transformed into increasingly strict political regulations, do not have their effect even according to the IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In its other report released last week, this scientific platform, which all anti-emissions campaigners refer to, states that in 2019 global anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (CO₂ and others) 12 percent higher than in 2010 and 54 percent higher than in 1990. "Average annual greenhouse gas emissions during 2010-2019 were higher than in any previous decade on record," reported by the IPCC. Any successes in reducing emissions brought about by EU measures over the past years and decades are thus completely irrelevant from a global perspective. And if we start from the premise that the global increase in temperature is a direct consequence of human emissions of greenhouse gases, nothing changes in this growth either.

It is a general experience from centrally controlled economies that if reality contradicts the plans, its creators do not react by adjusting the plans, but by bending reality and hardening even more in the revolutionary struggle for a better tomorrow. Although the measures do not work simply because of their absurdity, the central planner is convinced that they do not work because of their inadequacy. And that's why they need to be tightened. Despite all measures, emissions will continue to rise and the temperature will rise. The logical outcome will be that other sources of emissions will be sought, which will have to be reduced or completely eliminated in the name of combating climate change. And if the possibilities in the area restriction of traffic are exhausted, all buildings are compulsorily renovated, all cattle are slaughtered, and emissions continue to grow, the personal zone of each of us will come next.

Author: LADISLAV MARKOVIČ, IVAN GARČÁR

We are running out of time.

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

Governments will continue to debate ahead of the Cop28 climate talks on whether to call for a phase-out of fossil fuels, Egypt's Cop27 chairman told reporters after a meeting of 50 climate ministers in Copenhagen today. Egypt's Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said there would be "consultations and negotiations" on whether to call for a phase-out of fossil fuels when governments meet in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in November. This question divided the governments at the climate negotiations in Copenhagen27, which he chaired last November. Standing next to him, Danish climate minister Dan Jorgensen added: "There is no doubt that this will be part of the discussion heading into the Cop28 conference." But he added that "it is obviously difficult to say whether we will achieve this result later this year in Dubai". Shoukry said there is "general recognition of the importance of reducing dependence on fossil fuels and the possibility of transitioning to renewable energy sources, clean energy". He added: "It has to be taken in terms of what constitutes a just transition".

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

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

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

Pilita Clark, Financial Times, Carbon Brief

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

Adam Vaughan, The Times, Carbon Brief

Global renewable energy capacity grew by 10 % last year to reach 3,372 gigawatts (GW), Reuters reports, citing new data from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). The news portal adds: The report states that "solar and wind power dominated the increase in renewable energy capacity, together accounting for 90 % of all net renewable additions in 2022." It said this increase accounted for 83 % of all new energy capacity last year, but quotes IRENA chief Francesco La Camera: "If we want to stay on track to limit global warming to 1.5C, the annual addition of renewable energy capacity must triple current levels by 2030." The story was also brought by the BusinessGreen portal.

Nina Chestney, Reuters, Carbon Brief

• The plan to build a new incinerator near the town of Šaľa has been accompanied by protests from the beginning.
• This year, Budaj's department issued an approving opinion, but it is not yet legally binding. The department registers 30 appeals.
• The investor says that the waste incinerator will be crucial in the Nitra region, as landfilling is to be abandoned.
• In addition to construction in the south-west of Slovakia, the company also has plans for other locations

The local problems here are similar to those in other parts of the country. Šaľa in the south-west of Slovakia has been demanding for many years bypass, which would lighten traffic. In addition to road construction, the planned waste incinerator, which the investor - the company Ewia, wants to build near the city - has become the subject of discussions in recent years. From the beginning, the activists who wrote the petition did not like these steps. The investor, on the other hand, has been reassuring for years that such handling of waste has a minimal impact on the environment. It promises that, in addition to processing waste, it will also produce heat and electricity. The Department of Environment of Ján Budaj recently took an important step in the project. The plan for 120 million euros has thus moved forward. In mid-January, Envirorezort approved the variant, which is finally further from Šala, but closer to the village of Močenok.

This is a first-instance decision. "We will wait for the legality of the decision and then we will see. Like every big project, this one also has its opponents and supporters," he tells HN star...

Podľa nového prieskumu sa tretina mladých ľudí v Británii bojí, je smutná alebo pesimistická v súvislosti so zmenou klímy, pričom viac ako štvrtina sa cíti ohromená. Viac mladých ľudí uviedlo, že sa „veľmi obávajú“ klimatických zmien, ako starších ľudí, pričom 18 % ľudí nad 65 rokov uviedlo, že sa obávajú, v porovnaní s 31 % ľudí vo veku 16 – 24 rokov. Z prieskumu, ktorý si objednala organizácia Woodland Trust, tiež vyplynulo, že 24 % ľudí vo veku 16 – 24 rokov sa rozhodlo alebo zvažuje, že bude mať málo detí zo strachu o klímu. Výkonný riaditeľ Woodland Trust Dr. Darren Moorcroft označil výsledky za „alarmujúce“ a uviedol, že viac ľudí by malo mať prístup k prírode ako spôsob, ako zmierniť ich obavy z klímy. Zo všetkých opýtaných 86 % uviedlo, že pobyt na čerstvom vzduchu a v prírode má pozitívny vplyv na ich duševné zdravie. Dr. Moorcroft povedal: „Mladí ľudia zažívajú epidémiu klimatickej úzkosti a čoraz viac sa obávajú o zdravie planéty. „Tieto nové údaje ukazujú, že klimatické zmeny ohrozujú nielen životné prostredie, ale aj duševnú pohodu ľudí a ich životné plány do budúcnosti. „Vieme, že pobyt na čerstvom vzduchu a v prírode má pozitívny vplyv na duševné zdravie – ale úroveň prístupu k zeleni v Spojenom kráľovstve jednoducho nie je dostatočná.“

Podľa charitatívnej organizácie na ochranu prírody súvisí úzkosť mladých ľudí s nedostatočným prístupom k zeleni. V prieskume, ktorý si objednala organizácia Woodland Trust, sedem z desiatich mladých ľudí uviedlo, že sa obávajú o životné prostredie. Z prieskumu YouGov tiež vyplynulo, že 86 % opýtaných si myslí, že pobyt v prírode má pozitívny vplyv na ich duševné zdravie. Trust, ktorý prevádzkuje 400-hektárový les pre mladých ľudí v Meade v Derbyshire, uviedol, že výsledky sú alarmujúce.

„Pozitívne povedal: „Mladí ľudia zažívajú epidémiu klimatickej úzkosti a čoraz viac sa obávajú o zdravie planéty. „Vieme, že pobyt na čerstvom vzduchu a v prírode má pozitívny vplyv na duševné zdravie, ale úroveň prístupu k zeleni v Spojenom kráľovstve jednoducho nie je dostatočná. „Rozloha lesov v Spojenom kráľovstve je zúfalo nízka a my chceme, aby sa zvýšila. „Stromy a lesy sú neoddeliteľnou súčasťou riešenia prírodnej aj klimatickej krízy, ale mnohí mladí ľudia nevyužívajú výhody pobytu v prírode pre fyzické aj duševné zdravie.“ Vyzval vládu, aby do roku 2030 umožnila každému prístup k zeleným plochám v okruhu 15 minút chôdze od jeho domova.

Nový výskum hodnotí, ako by budúce otepľovanie Južného oceánu v okolí západnej Antarktídy mohlo ovplyvniť Rossov gyros, veľkú oceánsku cirkuláciu v tomto regióne. Pomocou simulácií modelu systému Zeme Spojeného kráľovstva (UKESM1) výskumníci predpokladajú „rýchle oteplenie Amundsenovho mora vyvolané rozšírením Rossovho gyra, ktoré je nezávislé od scenára pôsobenia“. To „zvýši teplotu kontinentálneho šelfu v Amundsenovom a Bellingshausenskom mori o viac ako 1 °C len za ∼30 rokov“, uvádza sa v dokumente. Výsledky naznačujú, že rozšírenie Rossovho gyra by mohlo poskytnúť mechanizmus, ktorým by sa úbytok ľadu na západoantarktickom ľadovci v oblasti Amundsen-Bellingshausenových morí mohol „zvýšiť ďaleko nad súčasný rozsah“. Autori dospeli k záveru: „Ak by sa takéto oteplenie uskutočnilo v skutočnosti, výrazne by ovplyvnilo budúcu stabilitu západoantarktického ľadového príkrovu.“

Geophysical Research Letters

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

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

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

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

Editorial, The Guardian

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

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

Camilla Hodgson and Attracta Mooney, Financial Times, Carbon Brief

From the Arctic to the tropics, wetlands occupy approximately 6 % of the planet's surface. These waterlogged soils are the largest natural source of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that plays a key role in increasing global temperatures. As climate change increases global temperatures and disrupts rainfall patterns, wetlands release methane into the atmosphere at a faster rate – a phenomenon known as the "wetland methane feedback". The new research, published as a "brief notice" in the journal Nature Climate Change, says there was an "exceptional" increase in methane emissions from wetlands in 2020-21. The document adds that tropical wetlands in particular are "hotspots" for wetland methane emissions, with South America accounting for the largest increase in emissions from tropical wetlands in the 21st century. A separate study, also published in the journal Nature Climate Change, said global warming is also affecting carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions from wetlands. The paper concluded that "warming undermines the potential of intact wetlands to mitigate climate change even with a limited temperature increase of 1.5-2°C".

Methane feedback in wetlands
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that has caused about 30 % of all human-caused global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Most methane emissions come from human activity – including the fossil fuel industry, landfills and agriculture. In 2021, the US, EU, Indonesia, Canada, Brazil, the UK and many other countries signed the "Global Methane Commitment", pledging to reduce their methane emissions by 30 % over the period 2020-30. Meanwhile, a report released last year by the International Energy Agency as part of its Global Methane Monitor concluded that "the most cost-effective options for reducing methane emissions are in the energy sector, particularly oil and gas operations." However, 40 % of methane emissions come from natural sources. The largest natural source of methane emissions in the world are waterlogged soils called wetlands, which are flooded with water for at least part of the year.

Wetlands take many different forms, from arctic permafrost bogs to tropical mangrove plantations to salt marshes. About 40 % of all species live or breed in wetlands. They also provide key ecosystem services, such as water filtration, and are important carbon sinks. Therefore, wetland restoration is often discussed as an important option for mitigating climate change. However, wetlands also release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. A new study examines how climate change affects methane emissions in two key types of wetlands – permafrost and tropical wetlands. Permafrost wetlands, found at low temperatures in high latitudes, consist of partially frozen and waterlogged soil. As the climate warms and permafrost thaws, long-dormant microbes begin to "wake up" and release methane into the atmosphere. Meanwhile, tropical wetlands, which are usually found in hot and humid climates. As a changing climate causes changes in rainfall patterns, new soils are becoming waterlogged and these wetlands are expanding, the paper says. Overall, this means that global warming is causing more methane emissions from wetlands. This process is called "wetland methane feedback".

Underestimation of emissions
The paper assesses wetland methane feedback using two different types of data—samples collected over many decades of fieldwork and data from a "reanalysis" that combines observations from multiple sources with model simulations. The authors use these two data sources to run wetland methane model simulations, which they use to forecast future methane emissions from both tropical and permafrost wetlands under various warming scenarios. The following graph shows 2000-22 wetland methane emissions compared to 2000-2006 levels as estimated from field data (dashed black line) and reanalysis data (solid black line). It also shows projected emissions taken from the fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) up to 2100. CMIP is a framework for climate model experiments that allows scientists to study and compare the output of different climate models.

The dark blue, light blue, yellow and red lines show the scenario of low (RCP2.6), medium high (RCP4.5), high (RCP 6.0) and extremely high (RCP8.5) emissions.

Ayesha Tandon, Carbon Brief

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, former vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said: "An overemphasis on geoengineering to regulate global warming could put the planet on a riskier trajectory."
If the world were to warm more than 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial times, it would mean significantly more heat waves, extreme precipitation and drought than if it stayed below that threshold. Most of these impacts will leave irreversible marks on ecology and people, said Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, former vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's largest collective of climate experts. An overemphasis on geoengineering to regulate global warming could put the planet on a higher-risk trajectory, he said in an email interview before the IPCC's summary report was released on Monday. Ypersele is a Belgian climatologist attending the IPCC meeting in Interlaken, Switzerland, which is running overtime.

A New York Times op-ed called the fact that poorer countries are contributing little to climate change but are already feeling its greatest effects "one of the great injustices of this era." It says: “The World Bank and the donor countries that control it can do more to address this generational challenge. For the World Bank and other multilateral lending institutions to be able to fulfill their purpose in the 21st century, leaders must figure out how to raise and use the vast amounts of capital that will be needed in the coming years to help countries adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate. For many years, climate financing has taken a backseat to the bank's dual goals of reducing extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity. Today, it is an integral part of achieving these goals."

Editorial, New York Times, Carbon Brief

European solar companies say restrictions on Chinese imports included in the EU's proposed net zero industry law could make the transition to net zero more difficult, the FT reports. The law obliges the authorities to consider reducing the value of tenders for renewable energy projects if the companies come from a single country that has more than 65 % of the EU market share of the product. [The rule has been interpreted as "anti-China", as the country currently supplies almost all of Europe's solar PV module imports.] Dries Acke, director of policy at industry lobby group SolarPower Europe, told the FT: "If we don't want to risk a slowdown in deployment solar power, we need a bigger carrot, especially when it comes to financing solar power plants in Europe." Bloomberg also reports on the reaction to the Net Zero Industry bill, noting that "critics have called the approach more reminiscent of a planned economy than a free market response ". David Fickling's opinion piece for Bloomberg describes it as "green protectionism [that] will worsen its energy security". DownToEarth India reports that the outcome for the Global South is still uncertain. Politico reports that France is still pushing for all nuclear technologies to be on the list of technologies subject to special conditions set out in the Net Zero Industry law, despite losing the battle for that option before the proposal was made public. (See Carbon Brief's full explanatory article on the Net Zero Industry Act and how it relates to the EU's Green Deal industrial plan). Elsewhere, Reuters reports that the EU is working on a system to encourage companies to buy gas together.

Yuan Yang, Alice Hancock and Laura Pitel, Financial Times, Carbon Brief