The 6th Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that things are bleak and the time to fix it is fast running out. Jaime Ho speaks to Winston Chow, Associate Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Singapore Management University and a contributor to the report, on what more governments, businesses and people can do to avoid the worst that will inevitably come.
The following is a C and a podcast. I'm Jamie Hoh, and this is the climate conversations. On August 9th, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC for Short, released this latest report on the state of the planet and the findings of more than 200 of the world's leading climate. Scientists from 66 countries made for some depressing reading. It outlined in 1300 pages what we can already see and sense that our activities over the last decades have led to stronger thunderstorms, unbearable heat, shocking floods and fires. In a nutshell, things are going to get much worse in the time to fix it is fast running out. In this episode, we have the Winston Chao, Associate Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Singapore Management University. He's also a contributor to the six assessment report. You want to get into what this latest report adds to our understanding of climate change. How much can we really change now to avoid the worst that will come? And what are the next steps? Wilson, as always, good to talk to you, welcome.
Thanks for inviting me again. Always a pleasure to come on the show.
Now let's get straight into what's called the assessment report air six. And for listeners who haven't had the time to get into the weeds of that report, they can either read your commentary on CNN. Thank you very much. On why this report is just the most important one yet. Start from the top. Tell us the basis of this. A reference to code red for Humanity is the tone of the seriousness coming through. And do you think so far we've gotten there?
The scientists involved in iOS six for this climate science report, we all sound like a broken record because fundamentally one of the key conclusions is humanity is causing recent climate change. It's there and it's getting worse is something that Airfoil five have reported on before. But what has changed now is that the societal context is somewhat different. 2015 there was Paris. Governments finally realized that we need a blueprint to avoid the excesses of extreme warming, and that's been put into place. And then in 2018, when the first of this assessment cycles, special reports came out, the special report for 1.5 that spurred a lot of groundswell of climate action around the world, most notably led by Greta Thunberg. And that solved necessitate that the change in thinking in terms of firstly, the urgency that people are starting to worry worldwide, and secondly, the need for action to help to mitigate the excesses of the bad things that are in the pipeline. That's what the report stresses.
As I was looking back on this, this is our six right here. One wasn't actually at energy did that long ago, but it seems like a very long time ago. But the science has also obviously evolved as well, not just the societal attitudes. Tell us then, how you know, as you look back, you are one to six. The language has changed from things like, you know, it can happen. It's like little things like unequivocal, you know, now code red. As you sat through all these past processes, what's the key thing that the science tells you?
Several things, but the one that is the most concerning is that the science of climate attribution of extreme weather events, which wasn't well developed, I would say, definitely wasn't in the first assessment report. But we'll stop that sometime in the mid 2000s, early 2010s. And it's developed enough so that this attribution science gives us a very good understanding that all the weird weather that we've been seeing over the past few years. Natural variation. Natural fluctuations in what you expect as normal weather. You can't explain that there is a definitive human influence on that. And one of the key things that iOS six in this report looks into is that, look, the science has developed and has matured enough to say that for most extreme weather events, there is a human influence so that the odds have shifted substantially. And given the current trajectory of emissions and the current non-action that was referring to, we can expect more of these bad weather events and hazards to increase in the future. And the implication, obviously, is what are we going to do about it? What are going to do about it?
Obviously, a lot of it lies in the hands of governments, and we're all looking forward to that. But before I get into the weeds again, I just wanted to get your take since you've been involved in this process as to how it actually works in IPCC reports getting approved. Well, I imagine all national governments have a stake in approving, endorsing whatever it may be. Take us through in rough terms how it gets through that right? What does the approval process look like? Do people get into the actual findings? Are there usually times where people push back to scientists actually come to a consensus quite easily?
Oh gosh. Oh, where do I begin? So actually, the approval process at plenary, the one that took place two or three weeks ago in late July or early August, is actually the final hurdle for this report. So the IPCC has tree assessment reports in this cycle, one for the climate science, one for the impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, the one that I'm read all spring, a couple of chapters in and then the Working Group three that looks into mitigation and sustainable development. All the authors write multiple drafts, and these can be reviewed not just with, you know, the experts within the IPCC, but is also open for public review for people like yourself if you're interested. Sign up with the IPCC over the course of the assessment, you get access to drafts, some of which are unfortunately leaked, and then you can make comments which we all as authors have to respond to. So in the last report, more than 20000 comments or something like that that have to be addressed, then the governments also get involved in the review process as well. At this stage, they point out what other interesting policy relevant themes that we want to look into. We can buy on that. And so there are multiple drafts is an iterative process. It gets completed before a final draft gets sent up. This is when things are more or less finalized. And then what goes on at the plenary, which I mentioned at the beginning, the final hurdle is when governments look at the two fundamental executive summaries. One is the summary for policymakers and one is a technical summary. That's where the discussions within the governments go into the language of these summaries. So for the summary of policymakers, each line, each punctuation mark each definition, each footnote is combed through by the representative said. One hundred and ninety five governments, plus the authors who mind you, we are doing this for free. So for the virtual conference, I've heard of stories of authors who kept their laptops with them by their bedside and responding to each governmental inquiry, both in formal plenary sessions or at the sidebar, to make sure that a compromise is met in terms of the language of the summary for policymakers. The science that supports the summary is not being challenged, but the wording and the messaging. What is extracted out for all the governments to follow through is being contested and discussed, and finally, a compromise is reached. That hurdle is somewhat painful, but we realize how important it is because that report is almost 4000 pages long. And it's not everybody except for the most hardcore of scientists. Or maybe like yourselves will be interested in looking at the chapters. The message that's distilled from the chapters has to be there in the summary for policymakers. So that sort of balance between what's useful for governments and what accurately reflects the underlying science has to be reached.
And I must ask, therefore, as an author, as a scientist behind all of these, you, I hope, find the process in itself worthwhile in coming to an agreed document.
I hope so. Is the culmination of many, many hours of work by the authors. And in my commentary, I say, I mean, all of what they really should be applauded was in working groups two and three. Our turn will come next year and mine in February, and for Working Group three in March, we can see the info that we can see how the reactions are or were for the Climate Science Report, and we can see that the discussion has now switched from Oh no, we're in trouble. So what are we going to do about it? The the sort of things that we write about or we assess and we will generate and hopefully publish well in February and March this year will carry on this story and carry on the narrative of emergency urgency and action that's needed. And also, I'm happy and proud to be a part of this, even though I and my my colleagues have volunteered a lot of hours and days and nights and weekends into getting this document into good enough shape that it'll be useful for a lot of people.
Yeah, let me get your sense on this as well. For decades now, scientists like you, people like me, we've known that the Earth is warming, and this report essentially outlines as bleak an outlook as we've gotten. As we said that no matter what we do, the emissions of the past couple of decades have already been baked into the atmosphere, and we are going to see a world that is at least 1.5 degrees hotter very soon. And those therefore who have been following the science quite closely will say that while there's nothing really new at all, it's just being a little bit more definitive in it. If you have a little bit skeptical, you say, Yeah, you know, are we rearranging the deck chairs, for example, on the Titanic? Do you think this is fair? And as you spoken to people out there since the publication of this report, for example, your students or colleagues? Have you got any sense of skepticism that people come to the conclusion that you know, things are maybe beyond redemption because people are using terms like code red, you know,
yes, code red or the futures fix, there's nothing we can do to stop it. And that's interesting. In the past, the sort of skepticism or contrarian ism were from people who refuse to look at the evidence and believed in alternative theories to explain climate change. Now the other sort of pushback is from people who think it's too late. We're all doomed. The Titanic has hit the iceberg, and let's enjoy our swig of whiskey before we jump into the icy depths, so to speak. I don't think that's the case. I will disabuse people on thinking that our future is fixed. No, the answers in how to stop the issue of exceeding 1.5, even though, yes, we will exceed 1.5 within the next 10 years or so, but we still have a window of opportunity to stop emissions. The bottom line the implications of what can one report is that the only way to get us to a level close to two or below two degrees as close as 1.5 is net zero emissions. The IPCC can't prescribe policies. It's not within. Our otherwise will be accused of bias. We only can assess the best science and then we can suggest answers that are policy relevant and in working groups two and three. The evidence is clear there are still pathways in which we can focus on that net zero objective so that we can reduce the excesses of the climate impacts or the potential hazards that will give us a lot of grief in the years to come. There is the opportunity for action and that's one of. Reasons why the Working Group on report came out in August to help direct discussions or put everybody on the same page when the Conference of Parties takes place in Glasgow later this year in November.
I'm going to get to COP26 as it's called in a little while, but let's talk a little bit about the 1.5 degrees in 2030, right? That seems to be the conclusion that we've come to that will get there. This is just for your sort of comprehension that people can see the targets and the deadlines right and what happens after that, but it's not so specific. It's also linear. And you know that you are already seeing temperature increases even before 2030, that pursuing field goal by 1.3 to 1.4 before you even get to 1.5. So we are already living it. Yes, it's not. It's not as if something will happen in 2030. This only changes the equation. Do you think we are already on that path, which is one point three one point, followed by five, even beyond one point five? There are fundamental changes already happening and will continue to change. Is this something that you think national governments and people have come to see? Well, sometimes I fear that the fixations on 1.5C to sort of make it out there, you know it is OK. It's just a fixed number down the road. But actually, we are already living it, isn't it?
We are living it at one point, one am on record saying I don't like the world at one point one. Thank you. Very easy. Exactly. Yeah. Look at what just happened over the past year or the past two years for your heatwaves, your wildfires, your droughts or your flash floods, your tropical cyclones, which are getting more intense in the years to come. You can't ignore these things anymore. And I think the message for governments and people to legs of this three legged stool for action rather clear governments realize that it's going to be more expensive in the years to come. And a lot more people are going to lose their lives, lose their properties with a lot of these climate hazards. We can't avoid that. People realize that their future, especially young people, realize they're going to be living in a future where the hazards are going to be quite prominent and the comfort that people are used to be it in the global north and especially in the global south, who want to attain the comfort, but now will be faced with a lot of climate vulnerability issues in the future. It's not going to happen. The other important element and I say that three legged stool, right the third leg is businesses and corporations. The report that came out implies that you need to really look at your risk profile right now. What assets do you have that will be vulnerable to all the severe storms that I mentioned? A lot of infrastructure is going to be hit for one thing, and then it also speaks a lot to mitigation. How can businesses, let's say, fossil fuel industries who may realize that the political and governmental winds are shifting fossil fuels are no longer kosher and a lot of places? Is it time now to seriously consider get on board the renewable non-fossil fuel revolution that a lot of businesses are keen on jumping on board? There's a lot of things aligning in that direction where good action amongst people, amongst the private sector, amongst the government, the public sector worldwide is taking place. I mean, the proof is in the pudding. Let's see what happens in November in cop.
I'm glad you raised the fossil fuel industry, for example. I've had previous conversations, quite a few on this podcast, talking about transition, talking about infrastructure, talking about inbuilt interest that the industry would have to join their transition towards renewables or something greener. But, you know, speaking as a scientist, as an academic, looking at it from the outside industry on a realistic trajectory, if they're going to take the key lessons from here are six on board fully. People like you use the word inflection point. If you have too many inflection points, it becomes a circle in any case, right? Are they really at an inflection point where you think they really need to take action now and significant action otherwise, you know, we make in the increases linked to the fossil fuel industry even more?
Good question. That inflection point I've used that term before. Thanks for throwing it back to me, Jamie. Yeah. You can view it as cooking a dish or baking a cake, then several ingredients that you need for that inflection point to take place first. Companies have to have that knowledge that if your current business plan or your vision for the next five or 10 years requires fossil fuels, then you're in trouble. Or if you all you need to have that fundamental shift away, at least at the C-suite level, to have that in place. But it also requires, I guess, support from governments who can play a major role in leveling the playing field. You know, getting rid of subsidies for fossil fuels, putting them into renewables, for instance. That will be a very good trigger, I guess, or another good ingredient to make that inflection happen. Then the other thing, if people change the demand side of the equation, if there's consumer interests and demand for renewable energy or renewable technologies, electric vehicles, for instance, or batteries that can help store solar power better than the current technology that we have, then that's another ingredient to put into the dish as well. It's difficult to prognosticate, I guess, how the dish will end up, but I am optimistic to see all these ingredients being put on the kitchen counter and getting ready to cook. So before you know it, I would say it's likely that this inflection point will happen sooner rather than later. And also, you're not cooking for yourself, your neighbors and your other people are also cooking at the same time. And there's that temptation from the business side not to be left out when people start cooking a new dish.
I want to turn now more specifically to Singapore. And then let's talk a little bit about the Singapore Green Plan. You obviously are in touch with policymakers, I'm sure. And also, I would imagine whatever is in air six wouldn't be a surprise to them as they look at what the prognosis is. But let me put something to you. If I were to say, you know, we're looking at here are six looking at how dire the situation would appear if you had new recommendations that you put to the government after hearing from students and from colleagues that could be added to this Singapore Green Plan. Minister Grace, who has referenced that this is a living document. What would you say, really? Now let's use this momentum from this latest. Here are six of the IPCC to build even more ambition. What recommendations would you give?
You're putting me on the spot here, Jeremy. The policymakers know what's at stake. What they can do is well. The basic indicators of ambition have an environment that shows that we really have to start this transition away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. More than 50 percent of all domestic or territorial emissions still come from the fossil fuel petrochemical industrial complex. A carbon tax will help. Definitely how much it is will have to be calibrated, but definitely not five, 10 or 15 dollars per tonne. There has to be more than that more clarity in terms of where the revenues are put into. Would it not just go for R&D research and development side of affairs, but how much of it will also go towards vouchers for populations that are going to be affected by the change or the transition or the sustainability transition towards renewable energies ramping up? Maybe the policy instruments would be like your GST vouchers or skillsfuture stuff for your skilled professionals that have that skillset, which can translate well from the petrochem to, let's say, solar or to the electric vehicle side of affairs. Sort of, let's say, a bigger focus on education. And I think that's happening at the Emory level. I see, as well as students being aware that climate change is not a single disciplinary subject that belongs in that same physics, chemistry, biology or economics or things like that. It really requires a big interdisciplinary skill set under the broad sustainability umbrella because a lot of things that happen from that physical aspect of climate change will have socioeconomic aspects that will be impacted, and a better understanding of that will be rather useful. I would argue to bridge this educational gap. Perhaps I would say these are the two that start. I'm very sure that there are those, as minister has said, because it's a living document. It can respond to good suggestions in the light of new information. When the facts change from the iOS six and from other good scientific assessments, then it's time to enact on that. That's one thing. The bigger thing is that it's time to showcase that ambition a bit more. My take is that I think it will happen sooner rather than later. Hopefully, by next year, once all the various IPCC reports come out.
Yeah, that's a important point because as you referenced as well early on in our conversation on net zero, for example, is going to accelerate even more, if not now at COP26, there'll be talk about people, governments with specific targets for net zero, putting it on the table. I imagine Singapore would be one of those people look at as well because our target now is to do it as soon as viable in the second half of this century. And do you think the pressure is going to be on people like us in the months ahead leading up to COP26?
The pressure will be on all governments on us. Not so much because we are still very small. Bottom line is, even if we go to net zero by 2050, which I think will happen, I will stick my neck out there. We will probably happen, come back to me again in 10 years time. The pressure's more on your bigger subjects. Our emissions are 50 or so million tonnes, up to 66 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. It's a drop in the ocean compared to us, China, Japan, that EU27, UK and in our part of the world, Indonesia as well. The goal is to get from 50 odd billion 51 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent to zero in about 30 years time. The bigger nations have a greater leeway greater capital, greater human and technological capital to push that needle towards net zero faster than others. And we want to be, at least in the Singapore perspective, we would like to catch that wave when it happens. We can do our part, I guess true conversations like this in the podcast or through governmental action or through individuals and businesses considering sustainable concepts in mind, envisioning what they have to do in the future. But we have to react to other countries as well.
Yeah, but here's the interesting thing as well. If we are going to be part of the group who are pushing ambition, who are asking the major emitters, as you see, to get to net zero, to get to net zero faster. If we want to be part of that conversation, then we ourselves, Singapore will have to walk the talk and say, Well, we've done it ourselves. And I suppose that's the kind of pressure that will come on smaller countries, not necessarily just because of the emissions itself, but for the role that a pledge from a forward leaning country like us and the effects that that would have. Right?
Yeah, definitely. We are limited by size. That's one thing. But one underappreciated fact about Singapore is our economic reach and how we invest in our regional partners or in regional countries. India attempts towards sustainability like how we finance the fossil fuel industries in some of our regional neighbours. We can have a say in that that's non-governmental, of course, is still a puppet slash business issue. Hence, how the government responds can hopefully have an effect on the business side of affairs. Some businesses, most notably Temasek, have taken a stand and say, OK, we're going to go net zero in operations and also divest fossil fuels from their portfolio as soon as possible. They are taking the lead in this, and it's encouraging to see other businesses or other finance firms that are based here follow suit. And that's the signal that I want to see happening that goes beyond, you know, the seven hundred and fifty square kilometers of this territory in order to ramp up our influence on climate action elsewhere.
But we've got to look set of even more internationally now. Do you think the six will have a material impact upon how people enter the negotiations and the meeting? I mean, we do know how those most affected by climate change, whether they are small island states, whether they are developing countries. We do know that obviously R6 makes the situation even clearer and worse for them. But in terms of being able to then bring everyone on board for outcomes on all the key issues that COP26 is looking forward to, do you think it will have that kind of impact? And what are your assessments as to how it's going to turn out?
Man, oh man. Difficult questions, Jimi. What the report does is it tells people both within the governmental side and those who are attending college hoping to influence government decisions by side events or by, you know, interactions that the 195 nations have agreed to the text of the summary for policymakers. There's no backing out or nor sort of contrary opinions about the science in this aspect. How it proceeds on. I have no idea, to be honest. I remain optimistic that more action will take place because this is what people have said is a conduit for humanity. But in the dry IPCC context, the thing is that, look, the science tells us we're going to see 1.5 two 2°C, but if net zero happens, you will see discernable and significant changes to the climate system for air pollution or for emissions from methane. They are short lived. You will see temperatures drop from that and within a generation within 20 years or so. From that zero, the climate system will respond accordingly and we can recover or keep to that Paris threshold of 1.5 or two. That is the common understanding that I think everybody involved in Glasgow will be aware of. And if folks are on the same page, if both governments, activists, academics, people on the streets there do understand that this is at stake, you know what can happen if action takes place? The climate will respond. It's a physical response to that. Then I think the conversations will be hopefully more efficient, less free of drama. Although that's a hot soup, the last fall probably will be some. There will be drama if you got this off of what's written. But the net result this I hope that firm action on the major emitters, on the conditions that do emit, the more CO2 will happen or at least clear concrete, quantifiable plans that are not motherhood statements will result from Glasgow.
A final question. And then this goes back to something that we talked about at the beginning about people's takeaways from this latest report. There have been some interesting conversations that we've seen online, especially among the younger people who now that they see this and this concept of climate and realism has emerged right where current generation are saying, you know, it's too late, it's pointless, it's not going to work. And it's something which an author, Michael Mann, has spoken about as well. The pessimism in itself is also a form of denial that actually action is still possible, right? Exactly, yes. But I do sometimes feel as if if I were young, if I were 20 years old, you find yourself hitting your head against the wall, you see these reports coming up. But if you had a 20 year old child, what would you say to him or her to say that, look, things are bad, but there are still things to be done? What would you
say? The 20 year olds will first call you a boomer first, right? But in all honesty, there is that underlying essiet. Michael Mann's fight climate. Myhill ism domu ism is counterproductive, but it originates from that sense of anxiety. The dread stems from the anxiety that time is running short and nothing is being done. I am not that old. I would like to think, but I see, compared to the debacle of 20 09 in Copenhagen, the cop and all the sceptic wars that took place in the early 2000s, I have seen progress happen. I have seen action taking place. I have seen businesses realise have come out and, you know, CEOs have said, OK, we can do nothing. We have to translate this anxiety into something productive and it's happening. The part of the reason is because youths, these days they are very vocal, they are very active and not just in the rest of the world and also of in Singapore. And that action is taking some effect. I would say don't be too do more IST. I guess it's not all doom and gloom in that sense. It will be doom and gloom if the US goes back the lost years of 2016 to 2020 happen again. But it's no longer just a single party issue in the US or in Western Europe. It's a bipartisan thing now. Fingers crossed. And the sort of dinosaur thinking that I can protect my own and I don't care about the future anymore no longer applies that 20 year olds, you say you 20 over 12 year olds will have to deal with the consequences of our inaction cogeneration. And she too and her sister will have to deal with this. And it's contingent on us to make sure that when we pass on the world to them, we've done all we can in our actions, in our communications and our decisions to make sure that we keep to the goals that people have agreed to or the governments have agreed to in the Paris Agreement.
Well, I recently had a conversation with a couple of 15 and 16 year olds, and based upon that, I do have some degree of optimism. But Winston Chao, as always, thank you very much.
Yup, thanks again. This was fun.
And thanks for listening to the climate conversation, stay up to date on CNN's coverage of climate change on CNN and on Asia. You can also find this in other senior podcasts on our website and on iTunes and Spotify. The team behind this podcast are Crispy now.But Insulin and Aaron Low. I'm Jimmy Ho again till next week.