Science and the international climate negotiations

Climate change has been recognised as one of the major challenges facing the world today. Its effects are becoming increasingly apparent. But it was the scientific community which first alerted politicians and decision makers to the threat, as a result of their curiosity about the Earth and their observations of environmental change. It is not unusual for scientists to be the first to predict the development of environmental risks – this was also the case with the potential damage to the ozone layer. This paper reviews how climate change became mainstream, how the science initiated and subsequently influenced the policy debate, the complex interaction between science and policy, and related institutional developments. From 1988 to 2016 I served as a senior science advisor on climate change in central Government, which gave me first-hand experience of the scientific and policy debates around climate change, the working of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (United Nations, 1992). My aim is to review, from a personal perspective, some of the key steps along the way and some of the important science and policy interactions that eventually led to the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015b). I will focus on the climate science in this article, although clearly the evidence required to assess and respond to climate change requires a broad range of scientific disciplines, including social science and economics. The earliest identification of the radiative properties of trace gases was made by John Tyndall in the 1860s. Then Svante Arrhenius published work in 1897 suggesting that the average temperature of the Earth would be affected by different levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Such views did not gain widespread recognition, however, and for many years climate was regarded as a stable background to our lives. Any changes were commonly seen as a part of a natural fluctuation. Significant climate changes (such as periods of glaciations) were viewed only as being relevant to longer geological timescales. Of primary interest were the geographical differences in climate across the world. Engineers needed climate data for designing structures that could withstand extremes, but these largely assumed a stationary statistic, often based on statistics from the most recent three decades. Few thought about the global climate. A growth in the study of past climates through proxy indicators (tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.) brought the attention of the scientific community to the possibility that climates might have changed more rapidly in the past than had been hitherto supposed. The media, ever interested in the sensational, ran stories about an impending ice age (Calder, 1974). At the same time there was a growing awareness of the changes in atmospheric composition, most notably through observation by Keeling of rising CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa (CO2 record to present at https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html). Alarm bells were beginning to ring, leading to the First World Climate Conference, hosted by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1979, which identified climate change as an urgent world problem and urged governments: To foresee and prevent potential man-made changes in climate that might be adverse to the well-being of humanity (World Meteorological Organization, 1979). The conference also brought about the formation of the World Climate Programme (Zillman, 2009). In the 1980s other atmospheric environmental issues had come to the fore – acid rain, photochemical smog and depletion of the ozone layer. Pollution, which had tended to be seen as a local or at most a national issue, became a trans-boundary matter and eventually a global issue. Even so, there was much resistance to the idea that humans could affect the global atmosphere. Although ozone loss had been predicted, the discovery in 1985 of almost total loss of ozone in the stratosphere over Antarctica in the austral spring – the ozone hole – was a shock, since it was largely unpredicted. At the same time climate concerns were growing in two directions – the potential warming impact of rising levels of greenhouses gases and the potential for a dramatic drop in temperatures following a massive nuclear exchange, dubbed a ‘nuclear winter’. The latter provided a strong impetus for efforts to limit the nuclear arms race (Oreskes and Conway, 2010). The first truly international scientific assessment of climate change was undertaken under the auspices of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), WMO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) at a meeting in Villach (1985). Subsequent meetings in Villach and Bellagio (1987) set out the main conclusions and policy options for dealing with greenhouse gases (Jaeger, 1988). Importantly, it recognised the need for a global convention to address climate change. It is also of interest to note that the recommendations identified the main direction of travel required to address climate change which we would recognise today – namely, energy efficiency, development of non-fossil energy systems, reduced deforestation, limiting the growth of non-CO2 gases, planning for sea-level rise and enhanced support for policy-related research. The initial Villach conference also called for periodic assessment of climate science, which eventually led WMO and UNEP to set up the IPCC in 1988. Up to this point it would be reasonable to say that climate change was still viewed largely as a scientific matter, although political awareness was rising, particularly on the back of the publication of the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, which looked at the challenges of environment and development together (WCED, 1987). By 1988, the political pressure to address climate change had grown. In June 1988 the Canadian Government hosted the first ministerial-level meeting on climate change (WMO, 1988), in Toronto. The meeting proposed a global cut in emissions of 20% by 2005, which was in line with the science but optimistic politically, as subsequent events have shown. The difficulty for Toronto was very limited thinking about climate change by governments and a scientific view that the course of climate change was uncertain. The meeting was held with a background of unprecedented heatwaves and drought in the USA and Canada, which led Jim Hansen to state that this was part of the evidence that climate change was happening (Schneider, 2010). The UK approached the meeting with a measured view: we should recognise the potential risks of climate change, take ‘no-regrets’ measures to reduce our contribution to climate change and enhance climate research aimed at reducing uncertainty. The UK’s emphasis on science led to its prominent role in the IPCC and to the establishment of the Hadley Centre at the Met Office in 1990, with a major uplift in funding for supercomputing. But despite all this, the public profile of the climate change debate was relatively low. That was about to change – first in the UK and then more widely. The then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a scientist herself, had been invited to give a speech to the Royal Society in September 1988. In that speech she highlighted climate change as being one of the major issues facing the world, noting that we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself (Thatcher, 1988). This speech had the immediate effect of raising the issue of climate change to a whole new level in the UK and eventually abroad. The author was a senior science advisor in the Department of the Environment and one of only a few officials dealing with climate change at the time. In the weeks that followed, the level of interest in climate change exploded, with a resulting massive increase in workload. Climate change had in effect become a mainstream political issue. From then on events moved rapidly, with the establishment of the IPCC in 1988 and a Ministerial Declaration from the Second World Climate Conference, in 1990, calling for countries to work towards a climate treaty by 1992. It should be recognised that there was also considerable pushback on action on climate change from powerful industrial and political interests from early on, which manifested itself as the fostering of scientific scepticism largely to muddy the waters and slow any response (Gelbspan, 1997). There is insufficient space for me to treat this at length here, but note that attacks on the science (and scientists) and the promotion of alternative views at variance with the scientific consensus have been a feature of the climate story all the way through to the present (Schneider, 2010). This is not a phenomenon which is confined to climate change but is an approach which has been taken by vested interests in other areas of science and public policy, including tobacco and the ozone layer (Oreskes and Conway, 2010). The announcement in the summer of 2017 of the United States intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement shows that, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence for man-made climate change and its attendant risks, the political and ideological debate over climate change has not been resolved – in the USA, at least. The formation of the IPCC and the UNFCCC provided the international institutional foci for understanding of, and action on, climate change, with the IPCC assessing the science of climate change and the Convention negotiating and supporting implementation of agreements to deal with climate change. The two have a complementary relationship, and the interaction between the two has been a key element in progressing actions on climate change. It would take too much space to provide a detailed picture of each organisation here, but I will draw your attention to what I think are key elements in the way they operate, particularly with regard to climate science. to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies (IPCC, 2013) Thus its remit covers a wide range of scientific disciplines and includes economics and social science. The mandate for its work is agreed by its members; its reports are prepared through three scientific working groups covering climate science, impacts and adaptation, and mitigation. It is important to note that the main strength of the IPCC lies in its working groups, which are supported by hundreds of scientists with proven track records, drawn from many disciplines and many countries. It is they who prepare each Assessment Report (AR), which usually consists of a large detailed report, a technical summary and a summary for policymakers (SPM).1 1All the IPCC Reports are available on its website at www.ipcc.chTheir job is to review the scientific literature and to reflect the current state of the science of climate change for use by governments. A guiding principle is that the reports should be policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. It is important to recognise that the IPCC assesses what is already published. It does not undertake its own research, although it has from time to time made recommendations for research. Each report is reviewed in a two-stage process by a wider scientific community of peers and by governments, but responsibility for each report rests with its authors. One of the most striking things about the IPCC is the involvement of governments both in the review process and in the agreement of the SPMs. Some would argue that this is not appropriate and that it risks diminishing the independence of the science. However, it is also recognised, including by authors, that involving governments provides a challenge to the science and ensures that relevant questions are being addressed. In my experience as the UK’s lead on the IPCC for some 20 years I would firmly support the current arrangements for the following reasons: firstly, the full reports are wholly owned by the authors, so we know what they think; secondly, the SPMs are agreed with lead authors and may not contain material that is not reflected in the underlying reports. Furthermore, the involvement of governments ensures that the writers are challenged on the balance and clarity of their report and its relevance to policy questions. Finally, the reports are accepted by governments, who, by being part of the process, have had to engage intimately with the contents. The remarkable thing is that, despite disagreements, the reports have, with few exceptions, been accepted by governments and provided an authoritative body of information which can be drawn on in the negotiations in the UNFCCC. It is noteworthy that governments acting through the UNFCCC have endorsed the IPCC Assessment Reports and their usefulness to the negotiations (UNFCCC, 2014).The IPCC was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, jointly with Al Gore, following publication of the 4th Assessment Report in 2007, in recognition of the work of the many scientists engaged in its reports. Promote and cooperate in scientific, technological, technical, socio-economic and other research, systematic observation and development of data archives related to the climate system and intended to further the understanding and to reduce or eliminate the remaining uncertainties regarding the causes, effects, magnitude and timing of climate change and the economic and social consequences of various response strategies. Article 5 commits the Parties to support research and systematic observations and the help developing countries play a full part in this. As such these items are generally included on the agenda of the SBSTA. The SBSTA expressed strong support for the continued functioning of the IPCC as one of the independent and prominent sources of scientific and technical information relevant to the implementation of the Convention, as specified in Article 9 (UNFCCC, 1995). The interaction between the IPCC and the UNFCCC is an interesting one; both are independently governed, but the IPCC is in practice recognised by the UNFCCC as its primary source of scientific information. The main assessment reports, which have been published every 5–7 years, are agreed wholly within the IPCC, though some mutual adjustment of timing has been agreed on occasion to ensure material is available in a timely fashion. The IPCC also prepares Special Reports focused on specific issues – some of these are wholly proposed by the IPCC and some have been requested by the UNFCCC. It is probably less well known that the IPCC also prepares technical guidelines. The most significant of these are guidelines on the preparation of greenhouse gas emission inventories. These guidelines provide the basis for preparing emission inventories by governments for formally reporting their emissions to the UNFCCC. Emission inventories are generally built up from proxy data (such as coal or oil use) as there is no simple way of measuring the multitude of diverse emission sources. So the UNFCCC has a broad and a specific dependency on the IPCC. Over the lifetime of the Convention its engagement on scientific and technical matters has gradually increased. On systematic observation there has been a regular interaction with the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), which has regularly provided reports and plans to the UNFCCC. There is, however, a mismatch in ambition. Inevitably the key political issue has been the funding of observations, particularly in developing countries. Although the UNFCCC has generally accepted the value of and need for observations, it has recognised that other UN Agencies are more appropriate for supporting implementation, for example under the WMO’s Global Atmospheric Watch. On research the interaction is different. At the suggestion of the EU, the Parties agreed to set up a Research Dialogue between the delegates and representatives from the scientific community. It was recognised that although the IPCC would always be the main source of scientific advice to the UNFCCC, there was a need for a forum which would alert the Parties to emerging relevant science and would also give them the opportunity to signal research questions that they might have. Both the relevance of and interest in the dialogue meetings have grown steadily over the past decade. In the two years before the Paris negotiations, a more formal assessment of science related to the Long Term Global Goal was undertaken under a so-called ‘Structured Expert Dialogue’, which is discussed later. The Convention has had to address more specific technical scientific and technology questions – for example, negotiations on the role of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) in both being a source and sink for emissions of greenhouse gases. This is a highly complex and technical area and one which is both scientifically challenging and expensive for Parties to assess. When the Kyoto Protocol was agreed the treatment of LULUCF was quite basic, and more complex rules needed to be agreed subsequently. To aid its deliberations the Parties requested a special report from the IPCC on the scientific issues around LULUCF (UNFCCC, 1998). This report (IPCC, 2000) helped Parties to resolve their differences on LULUCF and reach agreement on the accounting rules for emissions and uptake of CO2 by LULUCF in the Kyoto Protocol. Another important scientific issue was the use of Global Warming Potential (GWP) to allow inter-comparison of the warming effect of different greenhouse gases. GWPs had been published in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; IPCC, 1990) and updated in subsequent reports. But some countries with high methane emissions raised concerns that methane was being over-emphasised. This lead to quite a long debate in the run up to the Paris negotiations in 2015, and a special workshop was convened to consider the validity of using GWPs and whether alternative metrics, such as Global Temperature Change Potential, would be more appropriate. Arguments can be made in both directions, but the outcome was that countries tended to support the metric that suited them as there was not a strong scientific steer on which was preferable. In the end it was agreed that GWPs from the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report (AR4) would be used for reporting against Kyoto Protocol commitments for developed countries for the 2nd Kyoto commitment period (2013–2020). The issue remains unresolved for reporting under the Nationally Determined Contributions, through which Parties indicate what actions they will take to meet their obligations under the Paris Agreement. Discussions continue. It is worth noting that key policy developments often followed the publication of IPCC reports, such as the formation of the UNFCCC (1992) after the FAR (1990); the agreement of the Kyoto Protocol (1997), which set emission reduction targets for developed countries and introduced emission trading, after the 2nd Assessment Report (SAR); the Marrakech Accords (2001), which made Kyoto operational after TAR (2001); the major but stalled Copenhagen meeting (2009) after AR4 (2007); and the Paris Agreement (2015), which agreed actions for all countries after the 5th Assessment Report (AR5; 2014). Table 1 summarises the key milestones on climate change through to the present. Throughout the period there were two key scientific questions which interested policymakers: was the climate actually changing due to greenhouse gas emissions, and were the risks of climate change significant and costly enough to warrant a fundamental change in society’s production and use of energy? Table 2 summarises the IPCC’s conclusions to the first question. It clearly shows the strengthening of the view that human-induced climate change was underway. In addition, the AR4 drew attention to evidence that other factors were changing due to greenhouse gases, including extreme events, sea-level rise and ecosystem changes. But it is the that was first to recognise that climate change was which to the agreement of the Kyoto Protocol. FAR The of the warming over the is with the by climate but is also of the same magnitude as natural climate The of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not for a or Our to the on global climate is limited the signal is still emerging from the of natural and there are uncertainties in key the balance of evidence that there is a on global climate. TAR Report AR4 Report 2 greenhouse gas emissions have since the largely by economic and and are than effects, together with of other have been the climate system and are to have been the of the warming since the Table summarises the climate change through the of IPCC reports. As well as an rise in temperature from the end of the we have a picture of warming by the end of the but with largely due to changes in the greenhouse gas emission which the temperature were The range which at the end were to be high economic growth and high use as and at the end growth of development and emission reduction The key issue for governments was the that high emissions would lead to a of temperature rise over the that was unprecedented since the ice in level which would for extreme events and leading to a wide of increasingly impacts across the world both the natural world and In addition, the of and climate change was contribution from ice To of greenhouse gas concentrations in the at a level that would prevent with the climate (United Nations, Article This in the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, to the global response to the of climate change, in the of development and efforts to including the increase in the global average temperature to well levels and efforts to limit the temperature increase to that this would reduce the risks and impacts of climate Parties to the UNFCCC had that the global temperature should be reviewed every 5 years and requested advice from the IPCC. the IPCC proposed the 2 – that would have been policy – but it does to it often in its reports, much work has been on it by the science community in response to the to limit warming to 2 By there had been relatively work on a although that is changing in the of the Paris Agreement and the IPCC’s decision to prepare a special report on a by the of at the of the UNFCCC, in time for the UNFCCC to review the global that same It is that the role of the IPCC has over the It initiated concerns about climate change and has a political response to the There is a strong and international process for assessing the science of climate change which has an role in the At the same time climate change policy challenges have raised new questions which have new scientific research. The will to need scientific evidence to its particularly on the and of the required and on the options for reducing emissions and the climate This is already in the decision to advice from the IPCC with respect to the review of the global and the that the IPCC’s will the Paris decision to undertake a global take every 5 years on towards implementation of the The first take will be in a after of the IPCC’s Assessment Such political for scientific that research climate change, through and of the climate the effects of climate change and the options for meeting the will need to not only but be particularly in developing countries. I would to and two for their on of this

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.