Shortcomings of IPCC AR6 WGIII – Mitigation of Climate Change

The report has severe shortcomings, including: 

The IPCC makes it look as if the temperature rise could be restricted to 1.5°C above pre-industrial and insists there was a carbon budget left, to be divided by using monetary analysis. 

This narrative results in a failure to highlight in the SPM some key drivers of change (such as heat pumps in buildings and air taxis in transport) and in inappropriately referring to such key drivers of change as ‘options’, while failing to mention the best policies to achieve the necessary changes, i.e. through local feebates.

The agenda behind this narrative becomes further evident in phrases such as “CCS could allow fossil fuels to be used longer, reducing stranded assets” and “oil and gas assets are projected to be more at risk of being stranded toward mid-century”. 

Instead of “assets” at “risk” of getting “stranded”, these are liabilities that burden the world with a rising cost of clean-up and compensation claims. The IPCC gives CCS further undeserved importance by mentioning it no less than 32 times in the SPM, while a key driver of change such as heat pumps is mentioned only once, and not under buildings but industrial policy. 

[ from IPCC AR6 WGIII SPM, click images to enlarge ]

These are not genuinely options, since the dire situation leaves little choice and instead makes it imperative to act most urgently, comprehensively and effectively on climate change, in line with the Paris Agreement. 

[ from earlier post ]

Options are more appropriately realized in the form of feebates that can offer a range of options, with the more polluting options attracting fees and with the revenues used to fund rebates on the cleaner options. 

An example of a wider set of local feebates is depicted in the above analysis of EV policy. A more diverse set of feebates could include not only fees on fuel and fuel-powered vehicles, but also on facilities that sell or process fuel, vehicle registration, parking, toll roads, etc. It’s important to act comprehensively, along several lines of action, e.g. to redesign cities and plan for air taxis. 

Given the urgency to act, such lines of action are all best implemented as soon as possible, yet at the same time many lines of action are best kept separate, as illustrated by the above image. 

The image on the right illustrates the difference between using a Gobal Warming Potential (GWP) for methane of 171 over a few years, vs the IPCC’s use of a GWP of 28 over 100 years. 

The Climate Plan prefers local feebates. Where needed, fees can be set high enough to effectively ban specific alternatives.

Instead, methane rose by 15.27 ppb in 2020 and by 16.99 ppb in 2021, the two highest growth levels since the NOAA record began in 1984. 

Anyway, have another look at the combination image further above. The right panel shows that, if the trend continues, a concentration of 3840 ppb (i.e. double the current concentration) could be crossed in 2029, which would translate into a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) of 768 parts per million (ppm) at a one-year global warming potential (GWP) for methane of 200. 

The clouds feedback could thus raise the global temperature by 8°C by 2029, but when also adding the temperature impact of greenhouse gases and further drivers, the clouds tipping point could be crossed much earlier, say by 2026, while a temperature rise of 10°C could happen even before the clouds tipping point gets reached. Drivers could include nitrous oxide (N₂O, see image right), seafloor methane, water vapor, loss of Arctic sea ice and the falling away of the aerosol masking effect, as discussed at the Extinction page.