{"id":19632,"date":"2021-11-26T21:45:17","date_gmt":"2021-11-27T00:45:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.cr2.cl\/eng\/?p=19632"},"modified":"2021-12-04T21:53:25","modified_gmt":"2021-12-05T00:53:25","slug":"guest-post-how-cop26-finally-recognised-the-latest-ipcc-climate-science-carbon-brief","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cr2.cl\/eng\/guest-post-how-cop26-finally-recognised-the-latest-ipcc-climate-science-carbon-brief\/","title":{"rendered":"Guest post: How COP26 finally recognised the latest IPCC climate science (Carbon Brief)"},"content":{"rendered":"

As climate scientists involved in the first part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change<\/a>\u2019s (IPCC) sixth assessment report<\/a> (AR6), and with several of us present at COP26 in Glasgow<\/a>, we were worried that the latest scientific evidence might not be recognised in the final COP26 agreement.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

By Sonia Seneviratne, Maisa Rojas, Pep Canadell, Christophe Cassou, Piers Forster, Nana A B Klutse, June-Yi Lee, Joeri Rogelj<\/p>\n

There was a precedent for this concern: in 2018 at COP24 in Katowice<\/a> in Poland, the IPCC special report on 1.5C warming<\/a> \u2013 published before the summit \u2013 was only \u201cnoted\u201d in the final document and no conclusions from the report were acknowledged.<\/p>\n

This was deeply troubling since the parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change<\/a> (UNFCCC) explicitly requested this report<\/a> within the Paris Agreement<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, IPCC reports present the most authoritative and comprehensive assessment of the risks and solutions to climate change, and the UNFCCC process aims to take into account the best available scientific evidence. After all, IPCC reports are commissioned and approved by delegations from the same countries involved in the UNFCCC process.<\/p>\n

Despite our concerns, the scientific evidence from the latest IPCC reports was explicitly acknowledged in the Glasgow Climate Pact.<\/p>\n

However, acknowledging the scientific evidence on climate urgency is only the very first step on a path that requires rapid acceleration of action and measurable reductions of emissions, if we want to keep a chance of limiting global warming close to 1.5C.<\/p>\n

Letter from more than 200 scientists<\/strong><\/p>\n

To highlight the critical importance of science from the latest IPCC reports being included into the COP26 document, we coordinated a letter<\/a> during the summit that was signed by more than 200 scientists. This summarised the main evidence from the IPCC AR6 report that was particularly relevant for decision-making.<\/p>\n

The letter was signed by prominent scientists in the field, including former IPCC Working Group I (WG1) co-chairs Prof Susan Solomon<\/a> from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology<\/a> and Prof Thomas Stocker<\/a> from the University of Bern<\/a>, as well as present IPCC WG1 co-chair Dr Val\u00e9rie Masson-Delmotte<\/a> from the Laboratoire des Science du Climat et de l\u2019Environnement<\/a>. These signatures were gathered in just two days, following the presentation of the IPCC AR6 report at COP26.<\/p>\n

At COP26, the IPCC report was also presented to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice<\/a> (SBSTA) of the COP. Several parties and NGOs actively represented the state of science in many of their arguments and there was also strong support for science from the UK presidency team.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, science was markedly better acknowledged in the final Glasgow Climate Pact<\/a> compared to outcomes from previous COPs. In particular, The IPCC AR6 WG1 report is \u201cwelcomed\u201d and key elements of the report are stated in writing in the document. Most importantly, the COP26 final text:<\/p>\n