OMNI CLIMATE MEMO MONDAYS, #140, AUGUST 14, 2023
NOTES FROM THE EDITORS. mONTHLY REVIEW. June 2022 (Volume 74, Number 2)
by The Editors
(Jun 01, 2022)
Topics: Capitalism Climate Change Ecology Political Economy Places: Global
[I discovered I had never forwarded this crucial explanation
of the IPCC process of two reports for each of the six IPCC assessments—the
scientific report produced by hundreds of scientists based upon thousands of
published studies, and the redacted government/corporate final report. If you had wondered why the final assessments
had seemed to have understated their findings, you were reading the Ffnal,
doctored document of each of the six assessments. –Dick]
Time is running out
for the world to carry out the social transformations necessary to avert
irreversible climate catastrophe, keeping the increase in global average
temperatures below 1.5°C (or below 2°C). The most optimistic scenario
currently provided by the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) describes a pathway in
which the increase in temperature will not rise to 1.5°C until 2040, peaking at
1.6°C, and then falling back to 1.4°C by the end of this century. But to
achieve this will require revolutionary scale transformational change in global
social relations affecting the human relation to the climate and the planetary
environment as a whole.
This was the clear
message of the original draft by scientists of
the most important climate change report to date: the Working Group III report on Mitigation
of Climate Change of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), authored by 278 scientists from sixty-five
countries, and drawing on some 18,000 scientific studies. The scientific report
was completed in August 2021. The final report was then published, following
alterations by governments of The Summary for Policymakers (SPM), in April
2022. Yet, the final
governmental-draftedSPM—the
only part of the climate change report that is widely read and that affects
policy—negated almost all of what scientists themselves had previously agreed
on with respect to mitigation in their original draft of the SPM, creating a
sharp divergence between this and the rest of the 2,900-page report.
It is crucial to
understand that, in the IPCC process, the lead authors of the report arrive at
a scientific consensus with respect to the entire
climate report, including the all-important SPM. But, before the IPCC report is
published, the SPM requires a second, supposedly higher consensus, known as
the governmental consensus, in which governments (with
corporate lobbyists looking over their shoulders) decide on the final SPM line
by line, rewriting what the scientists provided. This means that the published
SPM is no longer entirely the result of scientific deliberations but is
negotiated by political-economic interests. Governmental actors, however, are
not able to alter the climate report as a whole, only the SPM (Juan Bordera, “How the Corporate Interests and
Political Elites Watered Down the World’s Most Important Climate Report,” MR Online, April 27, 2022). The
justification for the twofold consensus process is that the governmental
consensus is simply meant to modify the scientific consensus to account for
political realities and in order to forge an international agreement. In the
case of the Mitigation report for AR6, however, the
governmental consensus took an extreme form that in effect entirely erased the
scientific consensus that had preceded it. . . . [To read the entire report, click
on Notes from the Editors above and scroll down to June 2022.]
The numerous changes
to the SPM for the 2022 IPCC Mitigation report,
which was altered in almost every line, dramatically highlight the role of
vested interests in censoring the science. A number of examples will suffice. .
. .
It is therefore
necessary for those seriously concerned about the current climate emergency to
rely primarily on the scientific report—that
is, the published chapters of the report plus the leaked SPM,
representing the actual scientific
consensus. In contrast, the
published, government (and corporation) redacted SPM should be entirely
dismissed as the consensus of capital, and the betrayal of
science, reason, and humanity. The science is clear. Without radical
transformative social change that breaks with the logic of the existing mode of
production and that points to a world of sustainable human development, there
will be no future for humanity.
Monthly
Review,Volume 74, Number 02 (June 2022).
Subscribe to the Monthly Review e-newsletter (max of 1-3
per month).
Dear Reader, we make this and other articles
available for free online to serve those unable to afford or access the print
edition of Monthly Review. If you read the
magazine online and can afford a print subscription, we hope you will consider
purchasing one. Please
visit the MR store for subscription options. Thank you very much. —Eds.