I’m just getting back from the IPCC approval session in
Yokohama, Japan. A full copy of the summary for policy makers, which we spent a
week approving line by line, is here. The chapter reports are also there.
I’ve been doing some interviews on the report, but not
that many given long flights, the different time zone here in Brizzy (yes, that's what they call it), etc. One really good overview
story in NY Times is here.
One of the reasons we started the G-FEED blog was to have a
chance to speak in our own words, rather than just through the media. So far
some of the stories on the report have been over the top negative. So I thought
it worthwhile to offer here a few thoughts:
First, the sky is not falling, and the report doesn’t say
that it is. To me, the report has some simple messages: 1) The impacts of
climate change are already evident throughout the world, in many different places
and types of natural and human systems. 2) The risks of further impacts are
very real. 3) There are many things we can do to reduce those risks.
The report is sobering because the facts are sobering. But
it is also tries to be very constructive by pointing out all the options going
forward. It lays out a vision, led by our co-chairs, of a much better world. I
think the final summary for policymakers is a very well balanced and thoughtful
report, and one that I am very proud to have been a part of.
I also get a lot of questions about the process. What is it
like to be an IPCC lead author? Writing the chapter took about 3 years. When we
meet we typically work up to 12 hour days, including weekends, often skipping
lunch, usually jetlagged from long flights in coach class, and for no pay. But
other than that it’s great!
More seriously, and on the positive side, it’s extremely rewarding
to work with colleagues that are the best in the world at what they do, and to
work hard with them to synthesize evidence and figure out what we feel
comfortable saying, and how to say it most clearly. It’s also an honor to
represent your country in an international process that is geared to providing
the best possible scientific evidence. I typically leave the meetings tired but
deeply impressed with the devotion and critical thinking of my fellow
scientists. And jealous of those whose countries fly them business class.
As for the plenary approval, the only word I can think of
right now to explain it is “exhausting”. Maybe I will have more energy and
perspective later on to write about that. But if you want to know why some of
the media stories are not completely clear, it may be that they were talking to
authors who had slept maybe 5 hours in the past 48 hours, if that. It’s a
further testament to the genius and stamina of Chris Field that he chaired
endless sessions and still managed to be so articulate and upbeat in the press
conference.
No comments:
Post a Comment