The main elephant in the room was the influence of the fossil fuel industry on policy. This was despite the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s third and final report. It is the world’s most authoritative climate authority. The main point of contention was how can you talk about mitigating the effects of climate change without confronting those in the fossil fuel industry. Robert Brulle, an environmental sociolog from Brown University, said that it was like Star Wars without Darth Vader.
The first two reports, which were both published over the past year, focused on the science behind climate effects and countries’ vulnerability to further heating. The third report, however, focuses on the potential solutions. This has been a major topic of debate in recent years for both governments of oil-rich countries as well as the fossil fuel industry.
Social scientists were successful in influencing more of their research to appear in the IPCCs reports. There are chapters that cover everything from debunking claims less developed countries need fossil fuels in order to tackle poverty to a list of attempts to block climate policy. One thing was clear in the report: Politics and fossil fuel interest are the only obstacles to adequately addressing climate change.
Although the role of fossil fuel industry is clearly highlighted in the reports almost 3,000 pages, researchers noticed that it was absent from the Summary for Policymakers. This is the part of the report that attracts most media attention and is often the first to be published. A draft of the summary that was leaked to Guardian earlier described the fossil fuel industry as an investment group in a high-carbon economy. However, it did not mention the fact that they were vested interest actors that actively work against climate policy.
Brulle, whose research was cited several times in the report is dismayed to have his work cut. He states that the scientists did a great job and provided ample information about climate obstruction activities. All of this information was edited out by the Summary for Policymakers, which was created through political processes.
The Summary for Policymakers is not controlled by scientists, but the chapters that are heavy on research must be approved by representatives of 195 countries. This year’s mitigation report approval process was the longest and most contentious in IPCC history. According to Leaked reportsRepresentatives from Saudi Arabia, in particular, argued for multiple references carbon capture and storage as well as the watering down language regarding shutting down fossil fuel manufacturing.
This process also included representatives from the oil industry. Editors and authorsThe IPCC has been doing this since its inception. A senior staffer from Saudi Aramco Saudia Arabia’s state-owned oil company was one the coordinating lead authors for the chapter on cross sector perspectives. This position is a powerful one. Chevron’s long-standing staffer was also the editor for the chapter about energy systems.
Julia Steinberger, a professor of ecological economics at University of Lausanne and the lead author of the section about mitigation pathways compatible with long term goals, says that none of this was secret. Steinberger states that contributors and authors are required to disclose their affiliations. However, Steinberger claims that contributions from oil industry insiders constitute an untenable conflict.
A person filling out forms does not necessarily mean they have no other interests. However, it does not mean that their interests are not related to science or the public interest.
Despite the influence oil companies and oil-rich countries have on policymaking, the report highlights the influence of fossil fuel industries and dispels some industry myths. For example, the new chapter on Demand, Social Aspects of Mitigation challenges the long-held belief of fossil fuel consumption being driven entirely by demand. Steinberger, who was a contributing editor to the chapter, said that it was possible to show that there is no sustainable or complete development without climate mitigation.
If you don’t mitigate climate change, the impacts will catch you every step of your way and make people’s lives more difficult and miserable, especially in global south.
The report focuses on the connection between climate mitigation and social justice. People are realizing how serious the climate crisis really is. There are many ways to deal with it. Moving to low-carbon energy and looking after the environment are good options. They also tend to improve energy security and justice.
According to Dana Fisher (director of the program for society & the environment at the University of Maryland) and contributing author to chapter 13, social scientists are looking to expand their reach into policymaking and not just the IPCC process. Fisher’s research is focused on the impact of activism on climate policies.
She states that there is not enough funding available to support the large-scale research necessary to give you high confidence in your findings. This reduces the amount of social science research that could be used in the report.
Below 1%From 1990 to 2018, the majority of climate research funding went toward social sciences. This includes sociology and economics. Despite the fact physical scientists admit that there is no way to solve climate change without more scientific evidence.
We believed that the information deficit model of social transformation was the best way to achieve it back in the 80s. We now see that it’s not about information, but power relations and people wanting economic and political power. It won’t help to tell people more climate science.
This does not mean that atmospheric models are not necessary or that we do not have a better understanding about various aspects of climate science. The report makes it clear that the lack of scientific knowledge and technological options is not limiting our ability to act on climate change. But, this report also shows that political will and entrenched power structures are limiting our ability to act on climate change. Social scientists agree that we will need more than climate models to effectively address these issues and act quickly to avoid the worst effects of global warming.
-
This story was published in the upcoming issue of Climate Coverage NowA global collaboration of news outlets to strengthen coverage of climate stories