There is more to addressing climate change than reinforcing the science

By John Stone

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is at a crucial crossroads. How well it responds to the criticisms in the recent public reviews will determine its future usefulness.

There is no doubt that the IPCC has been a considerable success. It has been a remarkable social innovation bringing together the scientific and government communities in joint ownership. It has successfully raised the awareness of the threat of climate change as a public policy issue by bringing together scientific experts from many disciplines and around the world to assess what we know and what we don't know about climate change. It has stimulated governments through the negotiation and adaptation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol.

The scientific evidence for climate change is now unambiguous. We don't need more science to tell us we need to act. Indeed, more science is likely to tell us we have already left it too late. While solid science has been necessary, it has clearly not been sufficient to stimulate the action that many believe is increasingly urgent. This would seem to have implications for the IPCC.

This has been evident for some years but the IPCC went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize and the euphoria blinded everyone to the need for change. In addition, governments were now comfortable with the IPCC — they knew what to expect — and saw no need to change things. Well that was until 2010 with the events surrounding ClimateGate and the allegations of errors in the most recent IPCC Report.

The fact is the landscape in which the IPCC acts has changed significantly since it was established over 20 years ago. The science is now well established even though there are still uncertainties and a great deal remains to be discovered. The political engagement is stronger; in fact climate change has become a political issue clashing with explicit or unacknowledged ideologies (for example the role of governments, constraints on business and trade and moral issues).

A wider variety of interests has entered the climate change discussion including stakeholders on both sides hoping for evidence that their interests are supported by the latest scientific developments. Climate change is no longer recognized as only an environmental issue; it is seen as a security issue, an energy issue, a trade issue, a development issue and so on. Finally, the IPCC no longer has the stage to itself. Governments, intergovernmental organizations and environmental groups (to mention but a few) are producing reports and information material such as books, videos and films.

"The fact is the landscape in which the IPCC acts has changed significantly since it was established over 20 years ago. The science is now well established even though there are still uncertainties and a great deal remains to be discovered."

There is some evidence that the events of 2010 have damaged the IPCC brand. This has been accentuated by the several public reviews of the IPCC that have prolonged media attention. While these reviews concluded that the main scientific conclusions were solid, they have nevertheless supported an impression that the IPCC procedures have some flaws. Some have suggested this undermines the strength and even validity of the outputs. It is not surprising then that changes have been called for to enhance the rigour and transparency of the IPCC.

While some organizational changes can be helpful, there is a danger of misunderstanding the nature of the scientific assessment exercise — the IPCC is a process first and only secondarily an organization. The real changes that must occur are not ones of structures and rules but mind-sets.

There are undoubtedly some lessons to be learned from the events of 2010 for the scientists involved in the IPCC. However, it is not yet clear that the lessons have been fully internalized by the scientific community. Most will go on as in the past and to some extent that is a good thing. But unless some of the criticisms of tribalism as well as insufficient inclusiveness and transparency are acknowledged, there will always be the threat of the past being repeated.

The notion of transparency, which was noted by all reviews, may be particularly tricky for it is not something that is universally understood. Nevertheless, the strength of commitment of the scientists has again been demonstrated by the fact that, despite the attacks on the IPCC, even more (some 3,000) volunteered to help write the next assessment report.

Finally, there needs to be a fuller appreciation that there is more to addressing the issue of climate change than reinforcing the scientific evidence. Effective communications — an area where the IPCC has been found weak — is clearly essential. We also need to understand better the human barriers to taking action — what the late Steve Schneider referred to as the "five horsemen of the environmental apocalypse: ignorance, greed, denial, tribalism and short-term thinking".

To which we might add "inconvenience". Unless we accept this reality we may be on a path where we will only effectively start to address the issue when the impacts are undeniable — by then, it will likely be too late.

John Stone is a retired public servant who managed the federal climate research program and served on the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is the lead author on the current IPCC Assessment Report. He is now an adjunct research professor at Carleton University.