Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: What experts recommend against the climate crisis

Which measures against climate change are really effective? The report published today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describes, in addition to ideal ways, where it is not possible to make sacrifices – and what is not worthwhile.

The man-made climate change will lead to a warming of 1.4 – 4.4 degrees Celsius in this century – that’s the way it is in the first sub-report on the physical principles presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last summer. Quite a range. The main reason why it is so big is that science does not know how humanity will behave in the future – what they and their governments are doing to contain the climate crisis. The current third partial report tries to describe exactly that in more detail: What options do we have? The report’s clear answer: the silver bullet is to stop burning fossil fuels and switch to renewable ones. But technological solutions and nuclear power can also play a role.

The only good news is that although we are producing more and more greenhouse gases, emissions grew more slowly in the 2010s than in the previous decade. But that will not be enough to overcome the climate crisis, the scientists say, and make it clear that by the year 2100 humanity will be moving towards a warming of 3.2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times.

Industrialized countries have to change something

For UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, this means: “We are in the fast lane towards climate disaster.” If the world really wants to comply with the 1.5 degree limit, then CO2 emissions are likely to increase until 2025 at most and then have to be reduced by 43 percent by 2030. A third of methane emissions would also have to be avoided. However, even then there will be a temporary overshoot of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

If we were to accept a temperature increase of two degrees Celsius, a 25 percent reduction would still be necessary – and that is on average worldwide. For industrialized countries, this always means significantly higher values. The 50 least developed countries have so far contributed only 0.4 percent to the total man-made greenhouse effect. The report also makes that clear.

“Royal Roads”: sun, wind, strong forests

The next eight years will be decisive for further development. That’s the main message. Because the goals that the states have promised so far – insofar as they have been reported to the UN climate secretariat as national climate protection commitments – are not sufficient to limit the rise in temperature: they still lead to a warming of 2.8 degrees Celsius. The existing infrastructure of power plants and industrial plants alone would be more than sufficient to consume the remaining carbon budget.

The report clarifies the potential of the individual measures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not prescribe which of these the governments choose. He calculates dozens of scenarios and makes the dimensions clear – in a diagram, for example. The longest bars show the greatest benefit: solar energy, wind power and less forest destruction – these are the silver bullets in the fight against the climate crisis. Each of these options has the potential to avoid up to around ten percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions. Another advantage: The expansion is already worthwhile from an economic point of view or can be had for a small additional cost. Solar, wind and battery costs have fallen by up to 85 percent since 2010.

Capturing CO2 from the air

But alongside these big areas, the list of short bars is long. This means: very many different measures are possible and necessary, even if they do not bring very much individually or cost very much. This applies, for example, to all methods of technically separating CO2 from the exhaust gases of plants or filtering it directly from the air and “locking it away” in underground storage facilities. Without these paths discussed under the abbreviations CDR or CCS, the authors state that it will not work – especially not if a temperature increase of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius is to be “recovered” later.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers it necessary to do more here. Also because in all scenarios of future energy flows there will always be an unavoidable residue of emissions that have to be neutralized in this way. However, the lead author of the relevant chapter, Dr. Oliver Geden: Emission reduction is the essential thing. Relying entirely on such methods is not an option.

It’s worth using nuclear power, not expanding it

CO2 storage through other farming methods and afforestation have great potential, but the costs are often high. A healthy – especially low-meat – diet is also important, basically free of charge and achieves even more than the use of nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants are only cheap if they already exist. New ones, on the other hand, are extremely expensive: methane from leaks in natural gas pipelines and exhaust gases from coal mines and oil extraction systems contribute six percent to the climate crisis. 50 to 80 percent of such emissions could be avoided with little effort.

“There are bright spots,” says Jan Christoph Minx, coordinating lead author of the first chapter of this report. The costs of climate protection have fallen sharply. Half of the emissions can be avoided at a cost of less than $100 per tonne of CO2 avoided.

Commenting on the report, Fridays for Future Germany said: “The political wait for a technological miracle will be in vain. There is no option for CO2 removal that replaces the need for radical emissions reductions.”

“More and more greenhouse gases – that is undermining the fundamental human and environmental rights of the world’s most vulnerable,” said Vanuatu’s foreign minister, Marc Ati. Frans Timmermanns, Vice-President of the EU Commission, calls on all states to improve their climate targets to the 1.5-degree limit at this year’s UN climate conference in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt.