Thank you very much indeed for that…well it’s a very pessimistic report. Isn’t it?
Well I tried to end on a positive note.
We have a choice. And indeed this is a positive note.
It’s handing back the responsibility of mankind
to recognise that today we have a choice.
Science tells us also that tomorrow we have fewer choices
because of this cumulative carbon budget
and us continuing to emit,
eating away basically the remaining bits of the pie.
And can you convince governments?
Because governments have a cycle.
Well in the democracies their cycle is probably five years.
And indeed the behaviour of the public themselves,
again it’s their own lifetime they are thinking of.
I know they think of their children and we have all these…
you know, what will our grandchildren inherit.
But it’s all about behaviour.
And decision-making, and people making the choices to listen to this message.
We have certainly passed the first step
where we could convince the delegates representing their countries
to accept what the scientists have assessed,
and to accept also the formulations,
how we translate the numbers into words and into statements
which are robust and which are firmly based in the science.
That’s the first important step.
But of course now the question is how does that information convey
into a process that finds a cure to the problem,
that finds an approach to the problem,
that defines how we want to reduce emissions,
when we want to do that and who should go ahead with that.
And that is a completely different ball game,
and was not part of the task that Working Group I has been given.
Yes. I will take questions.
I am John Haslett from Trinity College Dublin.
I was very impressed by your focus on measures
other than atmospheric temperature.
The two degrees Celsius of atmospheric temperature
has become the headline figure that everybody thinks of.
Do scientists any longer use this in their own discussions?
Do scientists any longer regard this as the important measure?
The two degree target is an important one figure
that is actually shepherding a lot of support in the policy-maker circles.
And it’s important to have a really simple definition
of where you want to limit.
And since temperature is a large determinant of all the global changes
that we see it is actually quite useful.
But you are quite right.
The scientists also look at other quantities that are important for our livelihood.
For example, sea level rise is not covered well with the two degree target
because even if you stabilise temperature to 2 degrees,
this blue scenario that I have outlined,
sea level will continue to rise throughout the 22nd century.
In other words there is additional adaptation required with that particular threat.
There are other quantities that have become of recent concern.
And that is the ocean acidification,
which is also not covered by simply looking at 2 degrees.
The fact that increasing carbon dioxide concentration
in the atmosphere acidifies the ocean
and brings the ocean in certain areas to a critical point
where the formation of calcareous shells of marine ecosystems becomes more difficult.
And so that would be another target that one could consider.
It’s too complicated for the high level discussions.
And I think it’s quite useful to just focus on the 2 degrees for the negotiations,
but then be aware, very much aware
of many other changes that are quantified in the climate system.
And wouldn’t even a 2 degree, which would be an optimistic outcome,
wouldn’t that even distort the agriculture and the economies of the planet anyway?
Absolutely. There you have to then really go into the regions
and ask the question for every region.
How does temperature change in that region?
Because 2 degrees worldwide means, for example,
in Switzerland 3 degrees, or in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere 4 to 5 degrees.
So each region…..
So perhaps your whole….I know it’s a smaller issue,
but all your skiing industry could be totally distorted. Couldn’t it?
It will certainly be affected.
It is already affected now.
I can tell you of areas or resorts that are at the critical altitude
where winter is really short, too short to have sustainable tourism.
Yes. So that’s just…I know that’s an unimportant example
compared to some of the consequences for other spaces.
But I think everything changes once you change it by 2 degrees,
agricultural systems and existing economies.
We have a question here, yes.
My name is John Flannery.
I have no affiliation.
In fact you have touched on my question there about ….
does the report cover regional impacts as well as …
or just purely global impact?
But I guess it leads on to whether it’s worth exploring…
or are they exploring regional governments….
regional areas trying to mitigate themselves
instead of approaching it from a completely global aspect?
Well there are two steps here.
First of all we have made a first step
in assessing what changes in the different regions….
that’s an important element in addressing the problems that arise regionally.
But mitigation and adaptation just regionally will not do the job.
Because we are looking at the global problem here.
And there are many regions that today
already have reached the limit of adaptability.
And so we need to quantify what that means for all these regions.
So there needs to be ….
if you decide to limit climate change then there needs to be a global approach.
That doesn’t mean you have to wait until every player is on board.
It may well be that there is a coalition of the willing who says,
let’s now move forward and start on the path of that
transformation that is required, and lead the way.
Because some colleagues of mine call that the third industrial revolution,
that would be required.
The first one being the steam engine,
the second one the digital revolution,
and this one would be the green technology revolution
or the revolution of getting renewables.
And we all know from history that
with the two first industrial revolutions many people have become extremely rich.
So it’s an opportunity
and there’s no reason to assume that this would not be the case for the third industrial revolution.
And do you find that politicians listen when you put it in those …
I think that’s a brilliant kind of way of capturing the whole history
of the last two or three hundred years.
But it’s easy for people to capture that. Isn’t it?
I think yes, once it comes to these very day to day quantities,
degrees Celsius unfortunately does not belong in that category,
but euros and dollars does.
And so it becomes a little bit easier.
But also at the same time it becomes a little bit more difficult,
because there are no physical laws that permit us to make predictions
of economic development as we do predictions for the physical climate system.
Yes, we have a question from the other room about fracking.
Is it not ridiculous to be fracking to get more oil and gas when we need to decrease their use?
It’s an unfortunate situation to access these reservoirs,
which are also fossil fuels of course.
And their combustion will add to the problem,
as adds to the problem the fact that
coal power plants have become quite popular again in Europe.
This all adds to the problem.
And I think it needs to be taken into the equation
when we talk about emission scenarios
that limit climate change to 2 degrees
or 2.5 degrees or any other climate target.
It is a finite budget.
And no fossil fuel combustion will get around that finite budget
that the scientists have calculated.
It’s also a problem because these new forms of fossil fuels,
they can create a lock-in syndrome,
in the sense that you reinvest into old technology,
old distribution paths, old infrastructure to perpetuate,
old infrastructure that should be rehauled
and adapted to a new way of harvesting energy,
and that would be renewables.
A question from here, yes.
Hi, I am Barry McMullan, Dublin City University and An Taisce.
Thank you very much, Professor Stocker.
That was a very clear and blunt report.
I am just pondering the implications of this new finite budget way of thinking.
As you may not be aware in Ireland at the moment
the government is in the process of passing new legislation
which would guide Irish climate change policy over the immediate decades ahead.
It just strikes me that based on what you have described,
writing policy legislation today one would want to formulate it
in terms of this temperature target first of all,
declare what target we are adopting, and secondly,
based on some assumption about equitable distribution
what part of that budget the rest of our policy
has to live within over the next century.
Am I taking that up correctly?
Or is that an appropriate way to think about it?
This is the most fundamental question.
How can we devise a policy,
a world policy which involves all the countries eventually,
all the emitters of carbon dioxide in the future,
that is consistent with the wish of limiting climate change to 2 degrees,
which is actually laid down in the documents of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
There is still a lot of research to be done there.
There is also a lot of thinking to be done
what the ethical consequences of certain choices are.
For example, which countries should reduce when?
What is the historical responsibility of certain emissions?
These are extremely difficult questions.
And so my hope is really that we will see a wave of recognition of opportunities,
opportunities to invent new products,
opportunities to invent smarter technology,
opportunities to basically start this third industrial revolution
that I was alluding to before.
We have another question here from the other room.
What would the main mitigation factors
which could be taken in the BRIC countries,
that would be Brazil, Russia, India and China,
all of which of course are emerging as major major economies?
One of the processes that contribute a significant amount of emissions
to the global emissions is deforestation.
Deforestation contributes about 10% now.
It used to contribute about 25% to the emissions.
Now it’s down to 10%.
But it is a process that could reduce the global emissions immediately,
so to say by 10% if we decided to stop deforestation completely.
It also has secondary benefits.
We are talking about biodiversity.
We are talking about sustainable land preservation.
These are all things that these regions need to take into account
when we talk about deforestation reduction.
Now with respect to these other countries
that see tremendous growth or have seen tremendous growth in the past,
it’s clear that at some stage in the near future
these countries have all together to come aboard
of the coalition that have started already to reduce emissions,
if such a coalition then comes into existence.
It’s clear that all the emitters need to reduce in the near future,
if a climate target of 2 degrees is to be achieved.
But don’t they tend to say, you guys who are developed
and who are calling the shots on some of this agenda,
and are lecturing us are the biggest polluters of all,
and you are asking us, who are yet to be fully developed to take a bigger hit.
This is certainly an argument that has to be taken into serious consideration.
It’s actually laid down in the negotiations
as the common but differentiated responsibility
towards one of the greatest challenges of human kind.
I quote again from the documents of the Convention.
So one is aware of these things.
But there is no easy solution.
It’s like sometimes you know many have experiences with a large inheritance,
and many brothers and sisters around the table.
These are hard discussions.
But do you feel, as a community,
does that…and I was unaware that they were unpaid…
I know they will be getting expenses and so on,
and that they are all professionals anyway,
so they are paid by their university or by their government or whatever,
and that…I was unaware of that.
But do you feel as a group respected by the community,
the world to whom you are attempting to alert to this astonishing agenda?
Absolutely. In fact I am very happy about the experience
that we made at the last conference of the party in Warsaw last November,
when for the first time a structured expert dialogue was held
where scientists from our working group were invited
to explain directly to the policy makers
in the course of two two-hour sessions,
which, for these negotiations, is quite a substantial slot of time,
to respond to questions directly from the delegates,
and to really have an exchange,
a dialogue with those people who negotiate on behalf of their countries.
And there has been a deep appreciation to the scientific community,
to the results that we could bring to the table,
which is reflected in the fact that some of our headline statements
that I have explained to you tonight
have found their way verbatim into the documents.
Now, something written in a document is one thing.
Implementing then this is quite another thing.
But at least that first step has happened.
But if you think of Europe voting, the millions and millions of people
who voted in Europe in the last weekend,
why wasn’t this on the centre of that agenda?
Well, you don’t have to ask a Swiss about this.
Climate change generally has not been on the agenda
high up in the past seven years at all, in any agenda.
I mean we have, in Switzerland,
many many discussions about many things, but climate.
There is a climate policy.
Of course we participate in the negotiations etc.
But it’s never been sort of a very simple question
put through a referendum for you know deliberation by the population.
Yes, with the microphone, thank you.
Ken Macken, formerly Climate Manager with EPA.
I was taken with your starting point, 1992,
around 5.5….5.6 or whatever it was billion tonnes emissions, moving forward.
And then in that period up to 2013/2014 we have had four reports.
This is now the fifth. We have had the Kyoto Protocol.
We have had various Marakesh Accords and MOPS and COPS,
conferences of the parties etc.
And the emissions have nearly doubled…
a pretty steady line, even with the global economic crisis.
How confident can we be that in the next 20 years we are actually going to solve this?
Not very confident if we don’t change the pace.
That’s very clear.
But we can also ask the question what would have happened
if we didn’t have the four or five reports,
if we didn’t have the Kyoto Protocol,
if we didn’t have reporting by the nations, small efforts around the world.
I just recall two of the three major emissions sectors in Switzerland
who have actually come down on the Kyoto path
with the traffic consumption unfortunately going the other way
and making all these efforts basically in vain.
But there are sectors that have done a significant effort of reducing emissions,
triggered by the scientific insight
and the negotiations and the various mechanisms
that have been offered in the past 20 years.
But we also know it’s by far not enough.
It’s not sufficient.
What is required to really limit climate change,
if that is the goal,
is so much higher and so much more aggressive
with respect to reducing the emissions,
inventing new products,
implementing new standards regarding the efficiency of products
that with the present pace certainly there is very little hope.
That’s very clear.
My question to you is,
why this information is not given to media particularly,
which is a very strong influence in most of the democratic countries of the world today?
And also which will definitely filter to politicians.
What I feel is that,
this is our responsibility to include that particular section of details of mitigation.
And the second thing is that….
No, we will take that one question.
No, this is part of the same thing.
Part of the question, the same question.
The major problem that politicians and media face is that
they are assigning the responsibility.
After the Cancun Conference they have prepared a very nice international chart of responsibility
of every nation and every country.
Now for us in Europe climate change mitigation
means reducing some of our standard of living.
But in the developing nations it is a survival issue.
And just for example I can give you one single statistic.
No, I will take your question.
We have it and we have a number of people in the room.
He’s making the point that in some developing countries
this is more than a standard of living issue, it’s a survival issue.
I have already referred to this very intelligent statement in the convention
that talks about differentiated but common responsibility
and it’s very clear that this expression speaks precisely to this issue
and concern of development and survival.
But survival, I would argue, is not linked intrinsically with fossil fuel emissions.
And we should also note that where it’s about survival in smaller countries,
these smaller countries are not the major emitters either.
So the problem really lies with the large sectors,
the large emitters, and Working Group III of IPCC
has gone into quite detail in their report regarding which sectors,
which income class also of countries and regions cause how much emission.
Your first point, if I have captured that correctly,
regards the media and the role of the media in conveying the message,
and disseminating the message.
I fully agree with you.
The media are an important translator of information into society.
The problem is here we deal with scientific information.
This is complex.
And we all know that the major media have reduced quite significantly
the scientific journalists, the science journalists.
This is a trait that is not very common anymore with the big publishing houses.
Simply because they are not producing sufficient
amount of letters relative to the readership.
And so these important conveyors of messages
have been reduced in numbers quite substantially.
And we are feeling a disinterest also of society in scientific findings.
Sometimes also I wonder about the scientific literacy.
In my country where scientific subjects
and topics in the basic education have been reduced in the past 20 years.
Yes, and scientists are very under-represented as politicians.
And I am including medical doctors as scientists which they are.
That as well.
They are very underrepresented in parliaments in western Europe.
I don’t know about other countries.
But very seriously so.
But you can get your opinion pieces in,
and broadcasting is a very influential medium, where you can capture.
But do you think that the sceptics, the climate science…
the sceptics get too much space on the media?
What we have seen is the following pattern.
It may appear very boring to have a journalist report,
just reporting about what I just said.
Because there is no controversy there,
where people can find an interesting story
and some people fighting for opinions and facts.
And so I think many media have fallen into the temptation
to present scientific facts, as assessed by hundreds if not thousands of scientists,
through a very long cumbersome and careful process
of multiple rounds of reviews worldwide,
put that information together with an information created by one person
who has just a voice,
and doesn’t really have the scientific credentials,
or makes claims which together,
brought together make up an interesting story to read.
We have seen that many times in the past five or so years.
And it’s been a technique,
a methodology that is extremely efficient in sowing doubt in society …
by…oh, here is this body of IPCC and then there is this scientist.
So …oh, there must be a controversy,
and therefore not everything is clear.
And maybe we just let it settle for another five years,
and then we will revisit the question.
I think that is absolutely correct.
I have seen it myself…but …
I will tell you one thing,
the broadcasting organisations are very solemn about their importance,
and about their public service remit and so on.
But they still sometimes go for this controversy.
Would you also say that they sometimes put on people who are peddling disinformation,
by which I mean they know it’s wrong,
but they are just throwing sand in your eyes as it were?
That has certainly happened in the past.
Yes, there are examples of that.
There are also examples of where a person would just base their conclusion
on one individual piece of research
which is still being contested in the scientific literature,
where basically the settling of the knowledge has not yet happened,
and yet they move forward and bring this one piece of work out
into the public without proper digestion.
That would then distort, of course, the message.
Yes. And we have a question here,
which comes from the other room.
Do climate scientists every belong to pressure groups to press for mitigation?
I cannot exclude that.
But what we have done in this assessment round
is to have a very careful conflict of interest policy.
As a co-Chair of Working Group I I instituted that conflict of interest policy back in 2010.
And it consisted of a rather detailed form that every scientist participating in our assessment,
and there were 259 around the world, had to fill in this form.
And one of the questions was,
do you hold a leading function in an NGO or a pressure group
or do you give policy advice etc.?
And so that has to be declared.
It had to be brought to the attention of the leadership.
And in some cases we asked questions or in some cases,
by the sheer fact that we did have a conflict of interest policy,
some people, some scientists said,
OK, I recuse myself from this function for the next three years,
because there may be a perceived conflict of interest.
But these cases were very minor,
very few people that really required a more careful look here.
At the end of the room with the microphone, yes.
Hi. Michael Maher. I don’t have any affiliation.
I think you may just have answered my question.
I was going to say, your report, how has it been influenced by politicians,
other interest groups, other pressure groups?
And would it have been different if there hadn’t been such an attempt to change it?
Well I don’t know where you get this information from,
but our report certainly was not influenced by pressure groups.
It was not influenced by political agendas at the negotiation days
in Stockholm last September by the governments,
contrary to what you sometimes read in the media.
Rather during this negotiation of the summary for policy-makers,
we were challenged by the delegates of the countries
to find language that is less technical,
language that is clearer, sometimes language that is more complete.
For example, is it sufficient to just show the two extreme scenarios?
No. We would like to have also the numbers of intermediate scenarios,
or another related issue which caused us negotiations for two entire days is,
what precisely was the warming relative to pre-industrial.
This is an important scientific question.
But it’s not easy to answer.
And we found a reasonable answer in our summary for policy-makers.
So no, the content was not distorted at all.
We did not lose a single headline with which we went into the negotiations.
We did not lose a single figure in the Working Group I summary for policy-makers.
Professor, thank you, a really interesting talk.
My question is, you as a scientist and with such knowledge of the issue of climate change,
do you believe that we are going to face this challenge
and that we are going to keep within dangerous climate?
Knowing that we have only got so much left,
about 250 billion tonnes of carbon left in our carbon budget,
do you think we are going to achieve this with the vested interests…
massive vested interests of the fossil fuel industry globally,
the big pressures, most people in denial,
information not flowing through the media,
the media being part of the problem.
Do you think we are going to do this?
Or do you believe we are facing massive climate change impacts in this century?
I am an optimist by nature.
But I also know that we will not achieve this limitation of climate change
if we cling to the status quo, if we defend the status quo,
if we basically look away from the problem,
or if we say, ah let’s wait for another ten years and then everything will be fine.
It’s clear that in the coming ten years we will see more extreme events.
We will see more climate change in various aspects.
In Switzerland the glaciers will continue to shrink.
Globally sea level will continue to rise.
That’s a very easy prediction for the next ten years.
With the temperatures in the atmosphere it’s a bit more difficult to predict for the next ten years,
for the reasons that I have explained to you,
and for the reasons that are laid down in one particular chapter in our report.
But the optimism is still there.
But I feel that an important message out of our report
is also the fact that with every year of increasing emissions
we are basically eating away our options that we have at our disposal.
In other words, the window of opportunity shrinks.
I have once said the doors of the climate target are closing with continuing emissions.
And it’s this implicit urgency I believe
that needs to be clearly said, waiting is not an option here,
provided you want to limit the warming and the associated climate change.
And another question from the other room.
Can you talk about…and I know this is an area of expertise for yourself.
Can you talk about potential tipping points in Greenland and the Antarctic?
Tipping points have always been one of the focal areas in these reports.
Surprises in the third assessment report
potential changes of the Gulf Stream
and its northward extension in the fourth assessment report.
In this fifth assessment report there is now, we believe,
robust evidence that there exists actually a threshold
with the Greenland ice sheet beyond which this
Greenland ice sheet is committed to substantial melting
over the coming 500 to 1000 years with additional sea level rise.
This is a scientific insight that is new to this assessment report.
But there are other tipping points or thresholds
that may be crossed in various parts of the climate system.
I have mentioned ocean acidification,
the point where the saturation level of calcium carbonate is crossed.
There we will see marine ecosystems
that will have greater difficulties to form their shells and their skeletons.
And so there are a number of tipping points.
All of which become more likely to occur or being crossed with increasing temperature.
Somebody with the microphone will be favoured.
Yes. At the back, yes.
Hi. Declan Deasy, Mainstream Renewable Power.
In terms of getting people to live within their carbon budget,
how important do you see it to get a price for carbon to be set?
And if so, what’s that price level and will it be ever set?
You are asking a question to Working Group III.
The price on carbon is an important instrument
or would be according to the scientists who have participated in Working Group III.
One of the most effective measures to mitigate emissions
and to reduce emissions in the 21st century, the price on carbon.
I cannot give you a number here.
Have you given any consideration to capturing world attention on this?
If you think of say the Olympic Games is a major moment in attention,
world attention, on an opening ceremony or whatever.
Have you….why do you….?
Frankly I haven’t considered that.
No…no. But has your movement not?
And why not?
You would have to go to the Olympic Council, the International Olympic Council.
Yes, yes. We are not a movement.
I should be very precise. We are not a movement.
But they are a movement and they are….
We are a body…we are a body that provides the scientific information.
And it does so in a non-prescriptive way.
But you have got to communicate it.
That’s another very important point.
We speak in scenarios.
We cannot speak in prescription.
We cannot say, you must do this.
And if you have watched very closely our headline statements,
there have been long discussions about this,
the last headline statement starts with,
limiting climate change requires…etc. etc.
My understanding of English tells me that
limiting climate change requires is a conditional.
If you decide to limit climate change then here are the facts.
So we are not activists. We wouldn’t appear at an Olympics.
And I don’t think we would be welcomed
in the atmosphere of an opening ceremony of the Olympic Games.
And what about say, are you…is not at the heart of what you are doing the precautionary principle?
That the evidence may not be convincing
but it is so alarming that it would be better and safer to take the following policies?
Well the evidence is extremely convincing.
But there are still things that we don’t know.
We don’t know which scenario will be feasible
and that’s where the precautionary principle kicks in.
We don’t know whether we will be able to follow the low emissions scenario.
We are not sure whether we will be able to
stem all these reductions that are required for that scenario.
And so with the precautionary principle
I would argue we should start today and not tomorrow.
Yes. George Lee
I suppose in a way I am from the media. I work with RTE.
And I would just like to ask you a question which is very big in this country
about climate change and agriculture.
Because it’s the big challenge that we have,
42% of our non-emissions trading emissions come from agriculture,
and we want to increase agriculture and output.
Can you say something about the conflict
which there clearly seems to be between feeding
a growing global population
and the need to reduce emissions for a country like ours?
And the fact that because of the structure we are very unlikely to reach our targets.
Right. I mean there are several issues here.
One is, first of all, the waste in food,
that is produced already and that has emitted carbon in the course of the production.
If we are aware of the fact that we are wasting 50% of the food today that is produced,
there is a lot we can do to basically make use of the food or produce less food,
which would produce less…fewer emissions.
The second point regards the handling of remnants of agricultural produce.
I think there are techniques
where you can actually produce from the waste
that is produced in agriculture
you can collect these materials and then
bring them to use making gases etc. that you can combust.
And that would be actually not fossil fuel.
That would be grown fuel in a sense.
But on the waste and not on the primary product.
So there are various things I can see that can be implemented.
But obviously a priority is certainly the production of food.
There’s no question about that.
I will take two final questions. Yes.
Professor, can I ask you, if I may please, in regarding the 2% cap that we are…
or 2 degree cap that we are trying to achieve…
and the retreat of the ice caps etc.
What about the release of the frozen methane?
Maybe, is it a case that we have missed the bus on this?
Would there be runaway already?
This is a difficult question.
We do know that there is a lot of methane being stored in the high latitudes,
in peat bogs, in permafrost that is frozen at the moment but that will thaw in the future.
This will be a slow process as the warmth is penetrating into the soil.
This is slow, and therefore
these emissions caused by the thawing of the permafrost
and the peat bogs will also be slow.
We have estimated these emissions,
they will certainly contribute to this budget.
But it’s not something that we are alarmed at at the moment,
for the reason a) it’s slow and b) there’s quite a large uncertainty.
It could be on the order of 50 gigatonnes of carbon
which is the equivalent of five year world emission.
Or it could be up to 250 gigatonnes which is much more than that.
So the actual estimate, how much is stored in these areas is rather uncertain.
My name is Eoin Loughlin. I have no affiliation.
I think it’s …at an event like this almost a better idea
if people give their political affiliation
rather than the organisation to which they are affiliated.
So I have given my name and I have got no affiliation.
Your talk was just ….was fantastic Professor Stocker.
And not in the least pessimistic, just realistic.
But you have talked about a potential third industrial revolution
and that a lot of people could get very rich out of that.
But my question to you is,
don’t you think that that would just make the problem worse?
Because with the sort of economic inequality,
the international and intra-national inequality we have now,
with status conferred through what you consume.
So would it not be better to tackle inequality?
And this issue of economic inequality has gone mainstream,
especially since the publication of Capital in the 21st Century
by Professor Thomas Pickety of the Paris School of Economics
which I am sure you are aware of.
OK. Thank you for that. Yes.
I mean you are touching on an extremely important issue.
And it’s clear that inequality is innate to the discussion
of who consumes that remaining pie of the carbon budget,
of the 255 billion tonnes of carbon that are still to be burned
if we want to stay below 2 degrees warming.
That’s the crucial question.
How do we divide up that pie?
And if we consume more,
how would it be possible to extract some of the carbon back
from the atmosphere somewhere?
I mean people are discussing that as well.
We have addressed that in our report in a very short way.
Because there is not much science about carbon capture yet available.
But this is something that the scientists have started talking about as well.
And just to confirm, finally, your report is available.
You don’t have to burn rainforests to get the paper to print it on. It’s available.
And the summary is available. And the headlines are available.
Everything is available on the internet, on this website, www.climatechange2013.org.
You can go from the shortest and most concise message,
printed on two pages, just the headlines,
takes you probably about five minutes to read the two pages.
And you have the entire narrative of the report.
Or you can look at the summary for policy-makers.
If that is not detailed enough for you,
you go to the technical summary,
which is four times larger.
And if you still have the stamina,
you go to the entire report, which is 1,535 pages.
OK, so ...
I was going to thank you so they could applaud you, but they took that and anticipated it.
There’s one final question here, which I will answer.
It’s a very brief question.
Somebody put this in, and said, what does the EPA stand for?
So it’s the Environmental Protection Agency becoming more famous by the hour.
And with your contribution tonight, even more famous still.
So thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much.
0:00:00 / 0:00:00
Thomas Stocker. Co-Chair IPCC Working Group I University of Bern, Switzerland
The Physical Science Basis: Q&A