IPCC First Assessment - What we can learn from a 30 year old report

This is Part 3 in a series that explores the IPCC's First Assessment Report (FAR). Part 1 is about the science behind the crisis. Part 2 is about the impacts of the crisis.

Working Group III (Response Strategies)

The report of the Working Group III was very illuminating for me. I usually deal with literature that pertains to the science behind the climate crisis i.e. the part that explains the problem. Working Group III focuses on response strategies, or to put it more simply, solutions to the climate crisis. A refreshing change which left me a bit more optimistic! Of course, there still exists a chasm between the formulation of solutions and the implementation of solutions, but it's a start.

How should we deal with the climate crisis? In 1990, there were two broad directions of thought. We could focus on mitigation of climate change or adaptation to climate change. These strategies are not mutually exclusive and in fact, work better when developed in tandem.

Mitigation

To reduce the problem, it is necessary to look into its causes. The First Assessment Report (FAR) offered the following culprits which were causing climate change:

Source: IPCC

The Energy sector was found to be the leading cause of emissions (still is, today). Thanks to the Montreal Protocol, CFCs have been phased out and are no longer a major contributor.

Accordingly, the FAR suggested the following ways to limit emissions:

1. Improved energy efficiency
2. Use of cleaner energy sources and technologies
3. Improved forest management, expansion of forest areas
4. Phasing out of CFCs under the Montreal Protocol [ completed ]
5. Improved livestock waste management, altered use and formulation of fertilizers, changes to agricultural land use

The Indian Government's climate targets are in alignment with these suggestions*. 

Energy

The following potential options were identified to reduce GHG emissions from the energy sector:

1. Improving efficiency in energy supply, conversion and use
2. Choosing energy sources that have lower GHG emissions
3. Reduction of GHG emissions by removal, recirculation or fixation
4. Management and behavioral changes (e.g. increased work in homes through information technology) and structural changes (e.g. modal shift in transport)

I do not have the required background or understanding to comment on Point 1. However, without going into too much detail*, it must be pointed out that 30 years after the FAR, the Indian Government still pushes for coal as an energy source. The explanation provided is that we should utilize national resources and avoid dependence on foreign imports. Considering that there is no inclusion of climate costs in this cost-benefit analysis, I personally think this justification is vastly inadequate and disappointing.

The last bit (point 4) also caught my eye. As the world shifted (was forced to shift) to widespread work-from-home practice due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is noteworthy that the IPCC suggested this 3 decades ago. The "modal shift in transport" referred to technology development in public transportation that could lead to a shift from usage of personal cars to buses or metros**.

The FAR suggested some short term options for realizing emission reductions. One of them was: "reviewing energy-related price and tariff systems and policy decisions on energy planning to better reflect environmental costs". To put it simply, this follows the "polluter pays" principle. If you and I impose environmental and climate costs on the country, we should pay for them. Unfortunately, no such mechanism currently exists in the country.

Adaptation

The FAR stressed the need for tailored strategies multiple times. For example, it noted that "for some regions and countries, adaptation rather than limitation activities are potentially most important" (more on this in a later section). Some suggestions regarding adaptation included:

1. Developing emergency and disaster preparedness policies and programmes
2. Assessing areas at risk from sea level rise and developing comprehensive management plans
3. Improving the efficiency of natural resource use, enhancing adaptability of crops to saline regimes

Mechanisms

Alright, we have some potential solutions. How do we go about implementing them? The FAR suggested the following mechanisms:

1. Public education and information
2. Technology development and transfer
3. Economic (market) mechanisms
4. Financial mechanisms
5. Legal and institutional mechanisms

The number of options is heartening. Since climate change affects each one of us and is also a very complex problem, it is important to educate and empower citizens regarding the crisis. The FAR also identified technology transfer as a key point, especially to developing nations on a preferential basis. Market mechanisms include emission fees, subsidies, tradeable permits and sanctions. Financial mechanisms included erecting institutions which would provide financial assistance and resources to developing countries. Legal mechanisms include erecting legal institutions; this eventually led to the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Each of these mechanisms offers plenty to explore in-depth and I recommend Section 7 of the Policymakers' Summary to all readers.

Climate injustice

The unfairness of the climate crisis is not wasted on anybody, least of all the IPCC. This was highlighted right from the beginning in the Main Findings by WGIII:

It is generally well understood that the same expectations cannot apply to both the developing countries and the developed countries -- this is not only a matter of culpability, but also of ability (i.e. scope for reduction of emissions).

In my (limited) experience, the need for development is also well understood and climate considerations can be satisfactorily integrated with concepts of growth. People pitting the environment against the economy betray their inadequate understanding of one or both.

To conclude

A reading of the FAR raises many questions - when there was so much already known 30 years ago, why have we dragged our feet in implementing solutions? For example, why isn't there a greater focus on climate change in our educational curricula? Why has India not yet developed a system for charging emission fees? Why is there no climate legislation yet? Why does India continue to subsidize fossil fuel usage - that too, comparably with renewable energy? All these questions must be explored in the context of our limited culpability (low historical emissions), opportunities for technology transfer and availability of international climate finance.

[ So many questions, so little time! ]

Lastly, I leave the reader with this point from the Main Findings, which motivates me to keep writing a blog that nobody reads.

Here's hoping we reach the tipping point of awareness soon enough.

---

* "Are we doing enough?" -- is too important a question to be answered in passing. There will be another post on it, maybe many. But in the meantime, if you're interested in a one-word answer, it's a solid "NO!" from my side.

** 8 years later, construction would start for the Delhi Metro. According to the DMRC website, it is "the first ever railway project in the world to claim carbon credits for regenerative braking. DMRC has also been certified by the United Nations (UN) as the first Metro Rail and Rail based system in the world to get carbon Credits for reducing Green House gas emissions as it has helped to reduce pollution levels in the city by 6.3 lakh tons every year thus helping in reducing global warming."