Public Engagement Archives - Action on Climate in Teignbridge (ACT)

The IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report WG1 – findings and background

Introduction

This month the UN’s IPCC published the first part of its 6th Assessment Report (AR6). Entitled The Physical Science Basis (for Climate Change) it was written by the IPCC’s Working Group l (WG1), comprising 700 authors from 66 countries, and involving the assessment of 14,000 peer-reviewed studies up to 31 January 2021.

Quoting the IPCC, the report; “assesses the current evidence on the physical science of climate change, evaluating knowledge gained from observations, reanalyses, palaeoclimate archives and climate model simulations, as well as physical, chemical and biological climate processes”.

There is actually no new science in AR6, it confirms what we already know and are seeing, but with more advanced methodologies and comprehensive data than was available for AR5 (2013). Consequently, there’s more granularity on the consequences and geographical impacts and its opinions are more robust, with greater degrees of certainty, and without the cautious language of the past.

The report itself runs to 4,000 pages but the IPCC has issued a 40 page “Summary for Policymakers” (SPM) each line of which has been agreed by representatives of the 195 member governments.

Three more reports associated with AR6 are due next year:

Working Group ll is set to publish Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in February 2022.
Working Group lll is set to publish Mitigation of climate change in March 2022.
The IPCC will release a Synthesis Report, in September 2022, bringing together the findings of all three working groups.

Key findings

It is now unequivocal that humans have warmed the planet, causing widespread and rapid changes to Earth’s oceans, ice and land surface, with the present state of many parts of the climate system being unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years.
Many of these changes, particularly to the oceans, ice sheets and global sea levels, are irreversible and abrupt changes and “tipping points”, such as rapid Antarctic ice sheet melt and forest dieback, cannot be ruled out.
The links between human-caused warming and the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events, is now established as fact.
With increased global warming previously rare “compound” extreme events, eg a heat wave followed by fire or flood, will become more frequent and intense with longer durations.
Nowhere on the Planet is safe from the impacts of global warming.
In almost all emissions scenarios, global warming is expected to hit 1.5C (The Paris target for 2100) in the 2030s and, without reaching net-zero CO2 emissions, along with strong reductions in other greenhouse gases, the climate system will continue to warm.
Near-term emissions cuts can reduce the rate of unprecedented warming, and net-zero will work for stabilising or even reducing surface temperatures.

Models & Scenarios

The report uses the output from the latest generation of about 100 global climate models run by modelling groups around the world within five distinct scenarios (pathways) that describe how global society, demographics and economics might change in the future.

These recently developed scenarios, known as Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs), have been used, with the models, to develop projections of energy use, air pollution control, land use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over this century but in the absence of new climate policies, beyond those already in place today..

For the purposes of the report the results were further categorised into bands of expected global warming effects (radiative forcing) at the end of the century, measured in Watts per square metre. This measurement represents the net amount of the sun’s energy being absorbed by the planet, ie the energy arriving from the sun, less the amount reflected back into space, say by atmospheric aerosols.

The report’s scenarios (chosen from 4 of the 5 SSPs) and their effects can be briefly described as follows, with each one showing the original SSP (SSP1, SSP2 etc) and its radiative forcing at the end of the century (1.9, 2.6 etc):

SSP1-1.9: After an initial overshoot, warming is held to approximately 1.5C above 1850-1900 in 2100 (2C is extremely unlikely to be exceeded) and implies net-zero CO2 emissions around the middle of the century.
SSP1-2.6: 2C warming is unlikely to be exceeded, with implied net-zero emissions in the second half of the century.
SSP2-4.5: Is approximately in line with the upper end of combined pledges from countries under the Paris Agreement. The scenario “deviates mildly from a ‘no-additional climate-policy’ reference scenario, resulting in a best-estimate warming around 2.7C by the end of the 21st century”.
SSP3-7.0: A medium-to-high reference scenario resulting from no additional climate policy, with “particularly high non-CO2 emissions, including high aerosols emissions”.
SSP5-8.5: A high reference scenario with no additional climate policy. Emissions this high are only achieved within the fossil-fuelled SSP5.

Whilst the authors are sceptical about the likelihood of SSP5-8.5, they say the projections “can still be valuable” and that the concentrations of greenhouse gases it contains “cannot be ruled out”.

The report says warming is very likely to be within ranges for each scenario so, for example, by 2081-2100, SSP1-1.9 has a range of 1.0-1.8C, SSP1-2.6: 1.3-2.4C and SSP5-8.5: 3.3-5.7C.

Here is a graph of all five pathways, using the report’s best estimates of target temperatures:

To put these temperature ranges into perspective the SPM points out (with medium confidence) that; “The last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5C higher than 1850–1900 was over 3m years ago.”

Given the weather extremes already being experienced at just over 1C and the uncertainty over the various tipping points, eg irreversible melting of land ice, ACT and most academics now consider SSP-1.9 the only, but still worst case, scenario worth considering.

Comparisons with the Paris Agreement & 1.5C

Following the Paris Agreement in 2015, and the pledge to “pursue efforts” to keep global warming below 1.5C (over pre-industrial levels), the IPCC published a special report on 1.5C (SR15) in 2018 that looked at questions including how close the world was to breaching the limit, what it would take to avoid doing so and what might happen if those efforts failed.

AR6 WG1 examines the first question and its findings are similar to SR15 however the SPM states that the predictions on when 1.5C is first breached are far more detailed in the AR6 than the SR15 and so are not directly comparable.

Nevertheless, AR6 states that :

“In all scenarios assessed here, except SSP5-8.5, the central estimate of crossing the 1.5C threshold lies in the early 2030s.”

Carbon Budgets and Net-Zero

A carbon budget is an estimate of the maximum amount of CO2 emissions that can still be released into the atmosphere before a particular temperature increase is reached. In accordance with the Paris Agreement the two key increases are 1.5C or 2C, since pre-industrial times (around 1870). Measurements are in Gigatonnes (one billion tonnes) of CO2 (GtCO2).

Temperature increases are roughly aligned with accumulating emissions and so scientists calculate the total emissions, that will result in say a 1.5C increase, and then deduct what has already been emitted since 1870, the difference is the remaining budget that we can emit before reaching the particular temperature threshold.

An important consideration is that, as we have already accumulated so much CO2, the amount left to emit is quite small and so is sensitive to differing assumptions in the calculations. It’s a bit like filling a bath to just below the brim and trying to estimate how long, and with what force, we can leave the taps running before it overflows whilst incorporating an estimate of the loss of water from a badly fitted plug.

The modelling results and statements carry a degree of uncertainty which are expressed in terms such as “extremely likely” and associated with a % likelihood. In AR6 they calculate that a 460GtCO2 budget would give the world a 50% chance of limiting the increase to 1.5C and 360GtCO2 a 67% chance (The budgets for a 2C increase, with the same probabilities are 1,310GtCO2 and 1,110GtCO2 respectively).

The world is currently emitting about 40GtCO2 a year which is why there is an urgent need for “substantial and sustained reductions”, with the next decade being crucial.

Scenarios are increasingly dependent upon the availability of facilities for CO2 removal (CDR), ie natural or industrial methods for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, and the report covers the effects of these in detail, including some negative side effects on land use, food production, water quality and biodiversity.

The reliance on “net” emissions has grown in recent years with SR15 calling for Net-Zero by around 2050, in other words making sure that, by that date, what the world is emitting is cancelled out by what the world is removing. AR6 WG1 has not changed this.

Whilst AR6 WG1 concentrates on CO2, as the primary source of human caused warming, it also considers the effects of “non-CO2” GreenHouse Gasses (GHG) both in terms of those that warm and those that cool. Reducing some warming non-CO2 GHG will be possible but they will not be eliminated and so the report states that additional CO2 removals will be necessary to compensate for these.

Given the inherent uncertainties ACT believes that we owe it to future generations not only to strive to hit Net-Zero well in advance of 2050, by concentrating on emission reductions rather than significant CO2 removals, but also to use the carbon budget most closely aligned with achieving at least a 67% chance of limiting temperature increase to 1.5C.

Other aspects

The report goes into detail over many other effects on the climate and environment, covering rainfall, ice cover, oceans (including sea level rise), tipping points and air pollution and, for the first time, has “a far greater emphasis on regional climate change” including an online interactive atlas.

These aspects are reviewed in detail in the following links:

IPCC AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers the SPM

Carbon Brief in depth Q&A on AR6 WG1 (the source of much of this article)

YouTube “Just have a think” summary

YouTube discussion between Dr. Alison Green, Sir Robert Watson and Dr. James Dyke

Article by Professor Simon Lewis on Fossil Fuels and AR6National Geographic article

ACT Newsletter July 2021

Our July Newsletter is now hot off the press covering the following topics:

Last Chance to Influence Where New Housing is Built – TDC’s Local Plan – Part 2 (Deadline 9 August)
ACT’s Planning Application Tool
Catch up with ACT Wildlife Wardens
A “Just Transition” to Net Zero
The Government unveils its Transport Decarbonisation plan
Climate conflict
The Climate & Ecological Emergency Bill (CEE Bill) – update
The state of the UK’s rivers

Common interest not self interest

When Greta Thunberg met Sir David Attenborough, as shown on BBC TV recently, she asked him what he would say to young people who think there is no point in saying or doing anything about climate change because no one is listening. He replied that people are listening. “There just could be a change in moral attitude from people and politicians worldwide to see that self interest is for the past, common interest is for the future,” he said.

We all have a common interest in cutting carbon emissions and trying to keep global warming to no more than 1.5C above pre-industrial averages. But we often let our self interest stand in the way. Making that extra effort to change our behaviour can be a struggle, especially when our institutions and infrastructure fail to support our efforts

It is easy to take the view that any changes we make, whether becoming vegetarian, giving up flying, or driving less, will make little difference, so why bother.

Or there is the hope some new technology will provide the solution, and we can carry on consuming without a worry. Nuclear fusion will prove possible after all, or we will be able to suck carbon out the air and store it somewhere. We are an endlessly inventive species so surely some tech whiz will find a way.

Both those ideas are comfort blankets we need to discard. It is true that unless you are one of the super wealthy your actions won’t make much direct difference. Reports show that the world’s richest 1% produce more than double the combined emissions of the poorest 50%. They need to make the biggest changes to their lifestyles.

Per capita CO2 consumption emissions by four global income groups for 2015

If the richest 10% brought their emissions in line with the level of the average European, and the rest of us carried on as normal, global carbon emissions would drop by one-third within a couple of years, notes a report by the Cambridge Sustainability Commission.

The changes we make are just as important though. A one-third reduction in emissions is not enough. The more people who put solar panels on their roofs, insulate their homes, cut down on meat, and adopt active travel (by bike or foot), the quicker it will come to seem the normal thing to do. And once we’ve made one little change it becomes easier to make others. Of course, we need the help of the government and other institutions to make these changes, particularly where cost is a barrier. But don’t underestimate the power of individual example.

When it comes to technology, there is no doubt it can and will help. But our inventiveness has failed so far to stop emissions rising. Researchers from Lancaster University last year said climate action had been delayed for 40 years by technological promises. They called for an end to such promises and said the focus should switch to cultural, social and political transformation to tackle the climate crisis. That’s us and our communities!

The experience of the last year has shown that rapid transformation is possible. Our behaviour changed almost overnight as we went into lockdown. The vast majority of us complied with the new rules as the threat to our health was immediate and obvious. We have also participated willingly in the great vaccination experiment. We are effectively all guinea pigs, but recognise that our common interest lies in having the jab.

There is a consensus we need to Build Back Better as the pandemic subsides (fingers crossed!). That must mean prioritising actions to address the climate and ecological emergencies we face. In Teignbridge, 23 of the 50 town and parish councils, as well as the district council, have declared emergencies. Only a few have progressed to making an action plan or have consulted their communities on what they can do together. Action on Climate in Teignbridge is working with councils across the area to advise and support them. We have also recruited 64 volunteer wildlife wardens across 32 parishes, who will work to help local wildlife survive and thrive.

Every little helps, and there is often a positive benefit from such action to our own wellbeing as well as our environment.

“We have to make major changes to the way we live,” Sir David told Greta. It’s in our common interest.

Wildlife Warden Podcast Episode 2

In Episode 2 of the Devon Wildlife Warden Podcast, Emily Marbaix takes a look at the wide range of conservation schemes in our area and draws attention to the new National Grassroots Campaign Map. She also discusses:

The value of churchyards for conservation efforts.
A summary of what our local wildlife wardens have been up to.
Information about Wolborough Fen.
Information about bees, including an interview with local beekeeper, Gary and a closer look at our most endangered bee, the 6 banded nomad bee.
Details of the Westcountry CSI Project.
What you can do to support dwindling populations of house martins.
Information about Buglife’s new campaign – “No insect-inction”.

Wildlife Warden podcast

Emily Marbaix, a Wildlife Warden for Abbotskerswell, has created a podcast about the Wildlife Warden scheme. You can listen to the first episode here, as well as on Spotify and on Apple Podcasts. Emily talks about local wildlife/reserves, some of the things that Wildlife Wardens have been up to and explains why she got involved with the scheme. The podcast also includes some great advice on what you can do to help wildlife!

“Want to help your local wildlife but not sure where to start? You’ve come to the right place! This podcast offers guidance on what activities to do at what times of the year as well as pointing you in the direction of resources and projects that you could get involved with either by yourself or with friends, family and the wider community. Get inspired, get outdoors and do a little something to help protect the wildlife in Devon and the wider area.”

ACT needs your help

Dear fellow climate champions

ACT is planning its strategy over the next 6 months and could really do with some help. We are looking for a few extra people to help out for perhaps an hour or two a week with either committee or hands-on work.

You don’t have to be an expert in anything; what we need is your enthusiasm so, if you’d like to get involved, please fill in this questionnaire with some information about your interests and skills and we will get back to you.

Many thanks

Green homes grant not fit for purpose

The green homes grant scheme caught my attention as soon as it was launched in September 2020. It looked worth investigating, but my attempt to use it soon came up against obstacles. It proved difficult to find either independent advice on the most important and appropriate improvements to my home, or an installer authorised to do whatever work was needed.

Hearing that there are now authorised installers and assessors in the area, I have just tried to re-engage with the scheme. It proved frustrating.

The grant covers up to two-thirds of the cost of energy efficiency improvements you make to your home, to a maximum of £5,000 (or 100% of the cost up to £10,000 if you qualify for the low income support scheme). So it’s financially attractive (although recent stories in the Guardian show there are long delays in giving out grants and money is being withdrawn).

The biggest weakness in the scheme, and why I consider it not fit for purpose, is that eligibility is not dependent on any sort of whole house assessment. Moreover, it enables, if not encourages, you to fit a new more energy efficient source of heating, at a cost of maybe £10,000, when your home insulation remains inadequate or even non-existent, which is like putting new taps on a bath without a plug.

However, if you know which of the eligible improvements your home needs, the scheme could work for you. It is currently set to run until 31st March 2022. Here’s how it went for me.

The grant scheme’s website suggests you seek advice on the improvements to make. However, when you follow the link to check your eligibility you are sent to the Simple Energy Advice (SEA) website to check out the sort of improvements that might be suitable, based partly on the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) registered for your property.

After several pages of questions and, in my case increasing confusion, you are presented with a “Now build your plan” page with suggested improvements and the likely costs. You select the improvements that take your fancy and are then taken to a “Make your plan” page enabling you to download the details to present to your installer(s).

Whether I’m just unlucky, or too picky, this process didn’t work for me. For example, you are asked what type of roof insulation you have, either pitched or flat roof, insulated or not insulated, or don’t know. I have both types of roof but as the pitched roof covers the majority of the home and is insulated I chose that option.

My EPC tells me that, at 100mm, my insulation is insufficient and that it should be increased to 270mm, but by selecting the insulated option, roof insulation doesn’t appear on my plan.

Similarly, with the wall insulation question, you are asked if you have cavity or solid walls, insulated or not insulated or don’t know. I have a couple of solid walls but the majority are cavity, but the EPC is silent on whether or not they are insulated and so I chose “don’t know”. This only put cavity wall insulation into my plan, with no mention of solid wall insulation, but it’s pointless having it in the plan as I don’t know if I need it.

My hopes for floor insulation were also soon dashed. Options for answers to “What sort of floor insulation do you have?” were: don’t know, solid floor, suspended floor or none. I have a suspended floor with no insulation, so selected “none” but, mysteriously, was only presented with solid floor insulation in my plan, at a cost of £5,000.

Finally, but not exhaustively, the plan suggested a new condensing boiler (when I said I already had one) and upgrading my double glazing, neither of which qualify for the grant.

If and when you are lucky enough to be happy with your plan, you are directed to the SEA site to find an authorised installer for each of the 30 eligible improvements. In other words, you have to choose a home improvement measure before being shown appropriate installers.

It doesn’t, however, offer you authorised advisors to help you decide what sort of insulation or heating improvement you need and in what order. For this I referred to the Trustmark website, where all authorised people are registered, and where you can search in your area for retrofit assessors or coordinators under standard PAS 2035.

So, in my case, “The Plan” is to contact one of these to help work out what is best for my home and the planet, regardless of whether the green homes grant should play a part.

Members’ Forum on climate and ecological issues 10:30am – 12:00pm 27 March 2021

As the first in what we hope will be a series, we are running the above online Zoom event to cover some of the issues, relating to the climate and ecological emergencies, which are important to our members.

We want to attract as many members as possible and to get the ball rolling would ask you to complete this questionnaire to suggest topics we should cover, in the form of questions.

You’ll see we have suggested a few questions of our own that you can score and then you can add up to five of your own, in order of importance, along with any other ideas you may have.

Based on your responses we will select questions for this first forum for a panel discussion and will also give you the opportunity to participate in a question and answer “chat” session.

If you can’t make it, don’t worry, we will record the session and no doubt follow it up with others.

Hope you can join us.

Tell DCE 2050 is too late

The consultation on the Interim Devon Carbon Plan closes on 15th February, writes John Watson. Please take the time to comment on the plan. In particular, tell the Devon Climate Emergency partnership (DCE) that a target date of 2050 for achieving carbon neutrality is much too late.

The plan, put together by a specialist task force set up by DCE, describes what has to be done to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and looks at the opportunities and challenges and what the costs will be.

Many of the changes proposed by the plan are far reaching, but they will improve our health and wellbeing as well as our environment, and make the world a safer place for our children and grandchildren by avoiding runaway climate change. There is little in the plan to disagree with.

My main concern is to bring the target date forward. If we aim for 2050, we will produce way too many emissions in the intervening years and make the task all but impossible. The plan has had to be based on the government’s 2050 target for net zero, but that target is likely to be made more ambitious. As many highly respected national and international scientific bodies have pointed out, we need to aim for net zero by 2030.

The Interim Devon Carbon Plan itself is supportive of an earlier target, and encourages “all Devon-based organisations to become net-zero by 2030, including their supply chains”. It also “strongly encourage[s] national government to bring forward the net-zero carbon date for the UK”.

It is perhaps not surprising that one of the questions in the consultation is about the target date, particularly as many of the local authorities collaborating under the DCE partnership have set target dates significantly earlier than 2050.

The task force that drew up the plan is composed of academics, business people and individuals. They have taken evidence from many sources so far and have consulted younger people via a youth parliament. In the lead up to the draft final plan later this year there will be a citizen’s assembly and further consultation.

The task force is a sub-group of the DCE, which is a partnership, established in May 2019, between local councils, environmental groups, health bodies, utility operators, and organisations such as the Met Office and the NFU.

I have already made my comments on the plan. I hope you will too. It’s an important opportunity for local residents to have a say in the future of their local area.

David Attenborough Bears Witness

David Attenborough’s new book, A Life on Our Planet, should be on everyone’s Christmas gift list. Ask for it, or give it. If nothing else can persuade people of the urgency of tackling the climate and biodiversity emergencies, perhaps this will.

Even if you are already convinced, Attenborough’s Witness Statement delivers a powerful jolt. I watched the film of the same title (available on Netflix) and was horrified; reading the book reinforces that reaction as the facts are laid out on the page.

Luckily, the Witness Statement comes with a Vision for the Future. We can “once again become a species in harmony with nature” if we act now, says Attenborough. “All we require is the will.”

The positive message goes a long way to offset the appalling facts. I was particularly struck by this statistic: wild mammals account for just 4%, that’s four in 100, of the mass of all the mammals on Earth. Humans make up a third, with the remainder, more than 60%, being domestic mammals, mainly cows, pigs and sheep.

Most of the birds on our planet are chickens, insect numbers are in steep decline, and there is not a beach in the world unpolluted by our waste. That’s not to mention we are on course for 4C of global warming by 2100 as things stand. That’s more than double the 1.5C target we hope to stay within.

Attenborough’s primary solution to our problems is rewilding. This nature-based approach to capturing and storing carbon is by far the best. It’s what the world’s ecosystems had been doing effectively for thousands of years to maintain a stable climate before humans interfered on a massive scale. Such a project, undertaken alongside global cuts in carbon emissions, “would be the ultimate win-win – carbon storage and biodiversity gain all in one”, says Attenborough.

To move forward though, we will have to abandon our addiction to economic growth, at least as currently defined. A new model is needed to guide us to a more sustainable lifestyle; Attenborough suggests the Doughnut Model developed by Kate Raworth, an economist at the University of Oxford. This defines a safe space that takes account of the planetary boundaries we need to live within and of the need to share resources more evenly so no one is short of the necessities for human wellbeing.

Attenborough may not have all the answers, but he does have an influential voice. Let’s help people hear it.