Transcript provided by Kensho.

Lindsey Hall: I'm Lindsey Hall, Head of thought leadership at S&P Global Sustainable1.   

Esther Whieldon: And I'm Esther Whieldon, a senior writer on the Sustainable1 Thought Leadership Team   

Lindsey Hall: Welcome to ESG Insider, a podcast hosted by S&P Global, where we explore environmental, social and governance issues that are shaping investor activity and company strategy.

Esther Whieldon: In March 2023, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a synthesis report that warns the world needs to act fast to reduce emissions. The synthesis report provides a summary of all the IPCC's key findings over the last handful of years, basically since 2018.

This new report marks the end of the sixth climate assessment cycle for the IPCC. And given that assessment cycles typically take 5 to 7 years to complete, this report is effectively the IPCC's final warning of all the changes we need to make in this decade.

Lindsey Hall: This new report is also important because it's likely to be the go-to document for many stakeholders setting their climate policies and plans over the next several years. In this episode, we'll hear from 2 authors of the report. One is Dr. Peter Thorne, who is Professor in Physical Geography or Climate Change at Maynooth University in Ireland. He's also a Director of the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units Group at the University.

And we'll talk with Dr. Aditi Mukherji, who is the Director of the Climate Adaptation and Mitigation Impact Area Platform at CGIAR, that's the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, a large global research partnership that works with scientists around the world on agricultural innovation, and is dedicated to transforming food, land and water systems in a climate crisis. Okay. So Esther, what did you talk about with Peter and Aditi?

Esther Whieldon: We talked about a bunch of things, including decarbonization pathways, the long-term implications of potentially surpassing 1.5 degrees warming, that's relative to preindustrial levels. And we discussed how global warming will make adaptation harder and more expensive. Let's start off with my discussion with Peter about the key takeaways from the report.

By the way, you'll hear Peter hearken back to something we heard you UN Secretary-General António Guterres at the press briefing when the synthesis report was released. He said, "Our world needs climate action on all fronts, everything, everywhere all at once." Okay, here's Peter.

Peter Thorne: So this report cycle as a whole really has laid even more bare than ever, how responsible we are for the changing climate, what future we face and how that future is not yet written. The future we write depends upon the emissions choices we make today and in the coming decades. If we act very, very fast, very, very aggressively, everything, everywhere all the time, then we can get to a place where we leave a climate, that by the time of today's infants in primary schools around the world, is stable. And is stable as a climate that in most parts of the world is broadly recognizable to us today. 

If we don't get our act together, then we look into a future that becomes increasingly dystopian in its nature, increasingly difficult to live in, to adapt to. And it really is that stark in terms of what the science tells us. The science also tells us importantly that there is hope. That we have the toolbox that we need to be able to stop that warming, that we have the space in the global financial system to make it happen.

But it requires really a full and concerted effort, that requires every decision to be climate-proof. It requires a laser-like focus, not just by government, they make it a problem of your government, your community, your industry. It's everybody's problem. It's every individual. It's every community. It's every government. It's every industry, every company that has to work together to deliver that sustainable future that we need.

Esther Whieldon: Peter just said that if we don't get our act together, we could be headed to a dystopian-type future, but he also said there is hope. One of the ways that scientists have said we can limit global warming is to achieve net-zero emissions. And if you recall, Lindsey, the IPCC in 2018 found the world needs to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and that's to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius.

And since that report was launched, hundreds of companies and financial institutions and dozens of countries have set net-zero targets. I asked Peter whether achieving net zero by 2050 is still important or should we be aiming for earlier. Here's his reply.

Peter Thorne: So there is talk of when we might reach net zero. But there isn't a single date or a single way that you can reach net zero. There are multiple pathways that can be consistent with temperature, avoiding a temperature of 1.5 or 2 degrees centigrade. And that breakdown is geographically, that breakdown is also sectorally. So there are multiple ways we can slice, if you like, the remainder of the emissions pie and still reach 1.5 -- or fail to reach 1.5 or 2 degrees centigrade in theory. So yes, there are -- there is less and less focus on a single year, but it is still the case that, to avoid warming of greater than 1.5 with anything more than small overreach,we absolutely need to reach net zero by mid-century. And we absolutely need roughly half emissions in this decade. 

So it is going to be easier in certain sectors than others. In particular, electricity. There is a very, very clear pathway. We are already past breakthrough stage for many of the technologies that we need, in terms of generation and also storage that this will happen regardless now almost of policy decisions.The path is well-made there. 

There are other cases where it's more in development or proof-concept stage so that's sectorally. And then geographically, absolutely. I note that cuts to the heart of us, questions of equity and just this particularly between the Global North and the Global South. Let's be real here that historic responsibility rests almost entirely with the Global North and the current vulnerability is in the Global South and there is a major inequity that needs to be addressed.

And we will not get every country reach net zero simultaneously. And from a justice perspective, it should be the countries in the Global North with a great historical responsibility that get there first.

Esther Whieldon: How are fossil fuels treated in this report? I see them mentioned, but I don't see any talk about getting off of fossil fuels entirely.

Peter Thorne: So there are, as you said, mentions in numerous places of fossil fuels. In a sense, yes, absolutely. We have to get off fossil fuels, in particular, unabated fossil fuels, say, fossil fuels where the emissions are pushed into the atmosphere as we have done for over a century and a half. That's how we've got into this mess.

But equally, what matters from the climate system, the carbon dioxide or methane atom does not have a stamp on it saying made from oil or made from gas or made from this or that. What matters ultimately is the concentrations of greenhouse gases. 

So it's a little perhaps overly simplistic to simply say it's fossil fuels when a large amount of the emissions off from things like land use or intensive agriculture or other sources than solely fossil fuels. And it also is necessary to think about the solutions, we absolutely need to get off the fossil field-driven carbon highway, but it needs that nuance.

Esther Whieldon: You talked about how getting to net zero by mid-century is still important. Should we be aiming to get to net zero earlier than that?

Peter Thorne: Well, the very best emission is an avoided emission. So we should be aiming to avoid emissions today, and we should be aiming to avoid all emissions as quickly as we possibly can because we know that the impacts of climate change scale very, very rapidly with warming. So warming of 1.1 degrees where we sit now, we already cannot take.

We know that 1.5 will be a far worse climate neighborhood, if we get off the carbon highway there. If we continue to the 2, then that will be incredibly worse, really, really bad. And if we continue past that, it becomes unimaginably worse. So what's important is not an aspirational date or an aspirational target. What really matters right here and now, and physics is a very cruel mistress, is what you are emitting. And we should avoid emissions now and we should get to net zero as quickly as we can. That is the very best, most resilient way that we can move forward.

Esther Whieldon: We just heard Peter say that we should get to net zero as quickly as possible. But I was curious about how our chances of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees have changed in the year since the IPCC put out its 2018 report. For this, I turn to Aditi Mukherji.

Aditi Mukherji: So I think 5 years ago, when the 1.5 report was released at that time, it was very clear that if we were to stay within the 1.5 trajectory, the emissions had to go down by 45% by the end of this decade. And it is clear that 5 years have passed and that hasn't happened. If anything, emissions have increased marginally, I think, by 10%, 5%.

But it certainly hasn't decreased by the amount that it was needed for us to remain within the 1.5. So it almost seems inevitable that we would cross that 1.5 degree limit by as early as next decade, the middle of the next decade. And the particular way in which IPCC uses the term overshoot is not only do we cross that 1.5 degree, but there's also -- it considers the time it will take to come back to 1.5 degree or below. 

Having said that, I don't think it's entirely new, but now we -- because given the emissions trajectory, its pathways, it has become more and more clear that we are on track to cross 1.5 degree pretty soon.

Having said that, I think the report also says that every increment matters. For me, that's an important one. The message that we are not giving is that we are going to cross 1.5 degree and that is the end of the world because that isn't. Every increment matters here and 1.5 is certainly better than 1.6, but then 1.6 is better than something more warmer.

So the attempt here is to keep it as low as possible, keep global temperatures as low as possible through reducing sharp, deep and sustained reduction in emissions. So yes, in short, the focus on exceeding 1.5 degree is, I think, clearly enunciated in this report.

Esther Whieldon: We just heard Aditi say that we are on track to cross over 1.5 degrees, even possibly within the next decade. This made me wonder, could even a temporary overshoot past 1.5 degrees create permanent damage to ecosystems or nature? For that, let's return to my conversation with Peter.

Peter Thorne: So we know there are very many -- particularly the fast responding components of the climate systems. So that's temperature extremes, it's rainfall extremes. It's various other types of events that impact us in our day-to-day lives. Those very, very clearly scale directly with temperature.

So we know that every bit of warming that we add makes those impacts worse. So a 1.6-degree world is demonstrably worse for things like heat waves, droughts, extreme rainfall events than 1.5. And that's during the period of overshoot. But if we -- the trouble with overshoot is that if we overshoot for a considerable period of time, yes, for that period of time, things are worse in those very fast responding components.

But there are other insidious parts of the climate system that will remember, not least the great ice caps and the oceans, and that will matter massively because of the implications for sea level. But also, there may be impacts that may not even be evident for a century afterwards.

Imagine an old growth forest, where the temperature exceeded through a temporary period means that the trees failed to reproduce. That forest for another 100 years, might look for all intents and purposes as fully functional. But if there has not been reproduction and there is no longer new growth, eventually that forest will wither and die. So there are all kinds of impacts.

Overshoot is very far from a free picnic. We cannot rely upon promises of subsequent carbon dioxide removal to allow us to emit today because there is impacts during the overshoot period. There are major challenges, both technologically, it's unproven at scale, Economically, it's unproven at scale. We need to get real about reducing emissions now that is the most cost-effective measure that we can possibly take. In many cases, it's free or a cost saving.

Esther Whieldon: What Peter just said about how even a temporary overshoot could create some long-term consequences to certain ecosystems, leads me to another topic I discussed with both Aditi and Peter. Here is Aditi talking about how climate change is already creating hardships for farmers in the Global South.

Aditi Mukherji: So one thing that this report says clearly, and I see that in my day-to-day work with the small hold of farmers in the Global South, is that literally these people are at the forefront of climate impact. I worked with farmers in Bangladesh or in Sub-Saharan Africa where they are facing challenges that they had not faced at the scale that they're facing it now.

And this includes things like hugely variable rainfall, floods, drought, heat stress, heat waves, et cetera. And as we all know, that agriculture is really one of those -- literally the occupation that is the highest climate, whether it's future. I mean for farmers, especially small holder farmers, day-to-day, weather really matters a lot. And therefore, they are -- I mean, it's pretty obvious that they are facing the impacts the most.

And often, they are adapting as best as they can do, but then there are limits to those kind of adaptations. So some of the things you would think that adopting drought-resilient crops, drought-resistant crops is a good intervention, and it is, but then it's not just drought. I mean they face drought and then in 2 months, then there is a huge rainfall event and then they have the compound event of droughts followed by floods.

So what we are increasingly finding is that just one set of solutions per se, isn't enough. So what's needed is what we call is bundled approach, bundled solution and a lot of it would have to be around social protection, around insurance, around diversification of livelihoods. So this is a community very -- and very interestingly in the Global South, among these, there is no climate skepticism. These people completely understand that climate changes happen. They are living at the forefront of it. So there is a very clear understanding of the impact. So at CGIAR, we are working towards innovating ways in which farmers can adapt better.

We are also working towards how to reduce carbon emissions from the agriculture sector, from the crop sector, making sure that these are not negatively affecting their livelihoods as I mentioned, that many of these small holder farmers also lead rather precarious livelihoods.

Esther Whieldon: So Lindsey, we've heard how climate change is already creating adaptation problems for farmers. Here's Peter talking about how adaptation will become increasingly difficult to manage as global temperatures rise.

Peter Thorne: So as we continue to warm the climate, impacts get that much worse and as impacts get that much worse, we close off effectively adaptation options. There are options that are open to us at 1.1, 1.5 degrees, that effectively the door closes at 2 degrees, and certainly by the point you're at, say, 3 degrees, which is not out of the question, the century depending upon our mitigation choices. 

So we will have more extremes with greater warming and that reduces the windows of opportunity, the options, the toolbox, if you like, that we have available at our disposal to effectively adapt to those and to reduce risk for people.

But another point that's well worth making is even today, even with nominally effective adaptation, effective adaptation does not guarantee that there will be no impacts. It may reduce the impacts that we see even today in various events that adaptation measures are not 100% effective. And they never really can be 100% effective.

And this is where you reach adaptation limits, both soft limits and hard limits to adaptation, and we are increasingly seeing those even in today's climate. So a soft limit might be one way we could engineer a solution. But absent that, we can no longer, for example, protect a city by the coast, hard adaptation limits where we -- no measure of adaptation would ever solve the problem.

For example, a high-mountain species where we have moved the climate beyond the top of the mountain. It can't move up the mountain, it is locally extinct in that mountain range. And those hard adaptation limits are particularly in nature. And we have to think about how climate and biodiversity interact in this, and they are twin problems.

Esther Whieldon: You kind of mentioned some examples of adaptation, how they become less possible, right? And you also mentioned the possibility of people having to move away from the coastline. Is that because you're saying that things like sea walls might not work? Or can you give me some examples of the types of adaptation measures that cities often go to, or governments often go to that might not be as feasible as we get above 1.5.

Peter Thorne: Yes. And your example of sea walls is great because it's also a great example potential you have maladaptation. So sea walls can give this full security that you're safe. And therefore, people might invest millions or billions of U.S. dollars, euros, U.K. pounds, whatever currency you on.

Safe in the apparent knowledge that the adaptation is there and that it's effective. Well, in reality sea levels will continue to rise for thousands of years, even if we stopped emitting today because it takes that long for the oceans to become well-mixed, but more importantly, for the great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica to catch up with the change we have already wrought on the climate system.

But we are talking here about being at crossroads. If we manage to very quickly mitigate, then we potentially commit to sea level rise of 2 to 3 meters, whereas if we don't, then we could look at multimeters or tens of meters of sea level rise on thousands of years timescale. 

So adaptation also has a time scale issue, adaptation that is fit today may not be fit in a warmer world, and adaptation that does flood protection for a river might be fine at today's climate, but at 1.5 or 2 degrees, may become unfit for purpose. So a lot of it is down to what is the adaptation? Is it hard-engineered ecosystem-based adaptation? What is it that the adaptation is? Will it continue to work at higher warming levels?

Will it continue to work for these slow onset processes like sea-level rise? Will it work this decade, but not next decade? Or this century, but not next century because you're making huge investments potentially. If you continue to invest in somewhere like New York City today, it might make sense to this generation, but the next generation may curse you to high hell as sea walls become ineffective.

Esther Whieldon: So Lindsey, I think there were a couple of really important points that came through today. One is the importance of getting to net zero as fast as possible.

Lindsey Hall: It also stuck out to me how Peter said there still hope and our future is still in our hands. He said we have the tools we need to stop that warming, but it will require a full concerted effort by governments, businesses and actors across all parts of society.

Esther Whieldon: Please stay tuned as we continue to track the pace of global ambition to address these significant climate challenges ahead.

Lindsey Hall: Thanks so much for listening to this episode of ESG Insider and a special thanks to our producer, Kyle Cangialosi. Please be sure to subscribe to our podcast and sign up for our weekly newsletter, ESG Insider. See you next time.   

Copyright ©2023 by S&P Global  


DISCLAIMER  

By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk. This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties.  

S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST.