Media round-up: The IPCC synthesis report

Tuesday 4 November 2014

On Sunday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its synthesis report, which summarises the findings of three huge assessment reports.

It prompted a flurry of media coverage. Here are some selected highlights.

Broadcast media

BBC News discusses the “controversial” recommendation that fossil fuels should be phased out by the end of the century – “a huge undertaking”. Since every attempt to negotiate a new climate treaty has failed, and with Paris on the horizon, the BBC asks: “has anything really changed?”
With the “glacial” pace of the UN negotiating process, Channel 4 news asks: can we adapt fast enough? Professor Joanna Haigh argues that climate change has not dropped of the agenda, discusses geoengineering versus preventative measures, and the value of the political process.

Image - channel4news.png (note)

In The IPCC report: why it matters, the BBC debates why another report was needed right now. Scientists believe that political leaders are in the process to agree a new climate deal – and they want to give them the most succinct report for this – “It may be the runt of the litter in size, but in political terms, it could turn out to be a real heavyweight”.
In Climate change action will cost, the BBC broadcasts Ban Ki-moon’s speech at the launch of the report.

Image - Screen Shot 2014-11-04 at 15.44.54.png (note)

On the Radio 4 Today programme, the BBC asks whether a global deal on climate change is possible by next year. It also discusses whether the report found the right balance between costs and potential benefits. Professor Chris Field argues that if we act sooner rather than later the solutions will be “cheaper, simpler and more effective”.
Sky News reports on the “climate change bible”, put together to tell politicians what needs to be done to protect the “fragile ecosystem”. The coverage considers whether governments can make the “real difference” as we approach the critical deadline for a climate change agreement next year.

Image - Screen Shot 2014-11-04 at 15.37.57.png (note)

On Newsnight, the BBC places the synthesis report in its wider context, noting that “all eyes should now be on Paris”. Featured on the show is “veteran environmentalist” Bill McKibben, who argues that “the power of the fossil fuel industry so far has been enough to prevent real change from happening.”

Image - Screen Shot 2014-11-04 at 15.34.03.png (note)

Fossil fuel phase-out by 2100

A significant proportion of the print and online media concentrated on the IPCC’s statement that fossil fuels needed to be phased out this century if the world is to avoid the worst impacts of climate change:

The BBC summarises the report’s “familiar positions” on the state of the science, and discusses how the language “lays out the options more bluntly than before”.
The Independent says the report amounts to a “final warning” about the dangers of not doing enough to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.
Channel 4 reports that climate change is irreversible if fossil fuels stay dominant, and quotes Ed Davey’s view that the report “sends a clear message that should be heard across the world – we must act on climate change now.”
ITV News looks at the “substantial cuts” needed for greenhouse gases, reporting “the share of low-carbon electricity will have to rise from the current share of 30 per cent to more than 80 per cent by 2050.”
The Daily Mail cautions that growing reliance on renewable energy will increase the risk of power blackouts in Britain. They include a warning from new UKIP MP Douglas Carswell that “there is no form of energy available that is able to replace fossil fuels in terms of the energy it produces.”
The Guardian points out that “two-thirds of all the emissions permissible if dangerous climate change is to be avoided have already been pumped into the atmosphere” and looks at some of the potential solutions to cutting carbon emissions.
“Greenhouse gas emissions may need to be slashed to zero” reports The Scotsman, and quotes Scottish environment minister, Paul Wheelhouse, who says: “The scientific evidence could not be clearer.
The Metro calls the report a “devastating assessment into climate change” that warns of “very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible” impacts.

The cost of action, and inaction

The synthesis report’s findings on the cost of climate change also received some coverage:

“The longer government delay action on climate change, the more expensive it will become to tackle it” says The Telegraph, which quotes the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, saying it was a “myth” that tackling climate change would “cost heavily”.

The Financial Times strikes an optimistic tone around the economics of the report: “the risk of runaway climate change can be prevented without seriously denting global economic growth”, highlighting that cutting emissions would cost an average of just 0.06 per cent of GDP.

The Times reports that greenhouse gas emissions will need to fall “to zero or below” by 2100 to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. Negative emissions would be achieved by “planting billions of trees that soaked up carbon as they grew, before harvesting the wood and burning it in power plants fitted with carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems.” It goes on to say that CCS is “very expensive” and points out that the only commercial-scale project in the world costs £750 million.

Editorial and comment

Not all the coverage has been news-focused. A number of papers ran editorials and comment pieces looking at the wider implications of the IPCC’s report.

In the Guardian, US journalist and activist Bill McKibben argues that climate scientists have done their job – now it’s the politicians turn. But he warns that “breaking the power of the fossil fuel industry won’t be easy”.
A Telegraph editorial says the report makes for “grim reading” and the IPCC should place more emphasis on the positive – that GDP will treble in the 21st century allowing investment in “technologies that minimises carbon emissions without damaging growth”.
A gloomy editorial in The Independent argues the environment is so far beneath the economy on the political agenda that “prospects for agreement at forthcoming climate change conferences in Paris next year are scarcely better than they were at the last disastrous attempt in Copenhagen five years ago.”
Lord Nicholas Stern describes the report as “the most important assessment of climate change ever prepared” in the Guardian and says it puts pressure on Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, to make it a priority at the G20 summit later this month.
In The Times, Matt Ridley argues the cost of climate policies falls heavily on the poor, including leaving more than a billion people in Africa and Asia without electricity because of an unwillingness to fund coal power.
“Global warming pales when compared to many other global problems,” says Bjorn Lomborg in The Telegraph, and argues that climate policies will likely cost much more than the damage from climate change will.
Green groups have been unhelpfully “alarmist”, says IPCC lead author Professor Myles Allen in The Times, who worries it may result in the public getting the wrong impression about what climate change entails.
The Conversation looks at the climate myths that the new report addresses, and the case it sets out for action.
Grist brings you “10 things you need to know from the new IPCC report”, including “We already have the answers we need to tackle climate change”.
RTCC summarises the synthesis report in a series of tweets from climate scientist and IPCC author Piers Forster.

The view from the US

The report was widely covered in the US media:

The New York Times says reports that the IPCC has issued its “starkest warning yet on global warming,” and the “risks of climate change are so profound that they could stall or even reverse generations of progress against poverty and hunger.”
The Washington Post asks whether governments will be able to act to slow warming to a pace at which humans and natural ecosystems can adapt, or risk “abrupt and irreversible changes.”
The Associated Press strikes a similar tone: “Climate change is happening, it’s almost entirely man’s fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero this century.”
Reuters leads with the quote from UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon from the report’s launch: “Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in the message. Leaders must act, time is not on our side”.
Time magazine leads with the same quote and focuses on the IPCC’s topline finding that scientists are more certain than ever that human activities are having an impact on the climate.
Bloomberg highlights the difficulty in keeping global warming below dangerous levels, quoting co-author Ottmar Edenhofer: “we need to get to zero emissions by the end of this century.”
Scientific American highlights that greenhouse gas emissions in the first decade of the 21st century “grew twice as fast as it did in the last few decades of the 20th century.”

Other parts of the world

A few stories from other newspapers around the world:

India’s The Hindustan Times says the IPCC underlined the scope of the climate challenge in stark terms and that emissions from burning fossil fuels “may need to drop to zero by the end of this century.”
“Time running out for climate transformation,” says South Africa’s Mail & Guardian, which carries the quotes from US Secretary of State, John Kerry, that the report was “another canary in the coal mine.”
“Now comes the hard part,” says the Globe & Mail in Canada, declaring that the report has a clear bottom-line: “the world must wean itself off of fossil fuels, and soon, to avoid the most severe long-term consequences”.
“UN climate panel warns of irreversible damage” reports Al Jazeera, and says that governments can keep climate change in check at manageable costs but will have to cut greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2100.

“Chances still there to mitigate global warming.” says the headline of China Daily, which reports that “there are multiple mitigation pathways to achieve the substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades.”
The Sydney Morning Herald in Australia has an interview with three IPCC scientists and says that “even with a fairly strong level of action on greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of decades, by the end of the century the world will be about two degrees warmer.” In another article, it reports on the “defiant response” to the IPCC report from the coal industry.

Coverage from Carbon Brief

And finally, here’s our coverage of the report:

The IPCC synthesis report: A summary for everyone

🗂️ back to the index