Francisco Doblas, IPCC climate scientist: "Although they are disappointing, the world would be much worse off without climate summits"

• TERESA GUERRERO

  Madrid

Updated Wednesday,13December2023-22:54

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Send by email

Comment

Francisco J. Doblas Reyes (Madrid, 1968) is one of the climate change experts linked to the UN (IPCC) who prepares these exhaustive reports that serve as a basis for politicians to negotiate during climate summits such as the one that concluded yesterday in Dubai. At the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), the largest research centre in Spain, this climate scientist and ICREA researcher uses the most powerful computers to estimate what the climate of the future will be like, both in the short term and at the end of the century, information that they provide to public administrations and private sectors such as food or renewables. The Department of Earth Sciences at BSC that he directs is the largest institution working on issues related to climate change in Spain

An agreement was reached yesterday at COP28, which includes the need to make a transition away from fossil fuels. It is the first time there has been an explicit mention of the future of fossil fuels at a climate summit. What is your assessment? The words that have been chosen are quite revealing: Transition from fossil fuels has been used instead of phase out, that is, not immediate elimination but with the aim of limiting warming, which was much more radical. And I can understand why many countries have not accepted the term elimination for many reasons: the producing countries because they live off it; and those who need to develop their economy or survive because they have no alternative. We have to understand the socio-economic context of each country, but I think it is very positive that there is talk of progressively moving away from fossil fuels. Basically, what all this tells us is that we have to accept that we are going to exceed 1.5 degrees in the next 10 years, at most. And if we want to limit that warming to 1.5 degrees by the end of the century, we have no choice but to implement carbon capture methods during the 70 years that will remain between the time we exceed that temperature and the end of the century. industrial?
Yes, I'm not saying it, it's an estimate that comes from both the IPCC and subsequent updates from the Global Carbon Project and other experiments. There's no doubt about it. But you have to interpret very well what 1.5 means. Many people understand it to mean that once that temperature is exceeded, we will always be above, but this is not the case. The Paris Agreement mentions the climate threshold of 1.5 degrees by referring to the average temperature of the planet over a sufficiently long period. The IPCC uses 20-year periods to estimate the climate average of the global average temperature, the Paris Agreement does not specify any period for averaging that and the World Meteorological Organization uses 30-year periods, but this does not matter much. What does matter is that the commitments made now as a global society suggest that in the next 10 years at most, the average global temperature in periods of 20 or 30 years will have exceeded 1.5 degrees. That means that there will be many years in which the annual average temperature will be exceeded, some years we will be below but on average, in long periods, we will be at 1.5 or above.So, in order to reach the end of the century with a temperature that does not exceed 1.5 degrees, will it be necessary to capture the CO2 already emitted that would cause us to continue exceeding that temperature limit?
A part of it will have to be captured. Among the scenarios considered by the IPCC, the one that is compatible with a warming of 1.5 degrees by the end of the century requires CO2 capture that is equivalent to between 10 and 20% of what we are emitting annually at the moment, that is, from the 2060s or 2070s we should be able to capture between 10 and 20 gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere. which is a lot. Right now, around 50 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent are being emitted globally every year. CO2 equivalent allows us to include not only CO2 but also methane and nitrous oxides, which are the main sources of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. One of the most repeated criticisms of the agreement is the inclusion of carbon capture technologies that emit fossil fuels while they are still in use, as they are expensive and not yet very developed, as it is considered that they can encourage the continued burning of fossil fuels. What do you think of these capture technologies? The IPCC does not prescribe or make policy recommendations, but considers possible scenarios for the future. Carbon capture methods are mentioned in the scenarios considered in the Sixth Synthesis Report, but since we do not know at this stage what the capacity to scale these carbon capture methods will be at the industrial level, the estimate of their capture capacity is very uncertain. To capture carbon there are nature-based methods, such as planting trees, and others based on industrial activities such as carbon capture in wells, which is basically burying carbon. There are also methods that are called solar radiation management, but they are much more controversial because they would involve seeding the stratosphere with aerosols that would reflect sunlight and that could have secondary effects on rainfall. What I mean by all this is that there is a lot of uncertainty about what is the real capacity to capture CO2 and to artificially manage climate change, by which I understand that there are countries that are quite reluctant to consider this option as viable.
The agreement speaks of an "equitable and orderly" transition away from fossil fuels with the aim of "taking action in this critical decade and achieving net zero by 2050." If net zero is achieved by 2050 (emissions emitted into the atmosphere are offset by those absorbed), could the 1.5°C target be limited by the end of the century? No, it is not feasible if clear emission reduction targets are not set, which is something that has not been done. The agreement talks about transitioning away, but not how much, or who is going to do it and how. It is not enough for Europe to reach net zero by 2050 while many countries will probably achieve it, hopefully, by 2060 or 2070. Therefore, global net zero must be understood, and if there are countries that do not reach it by 2050, the rest would have to compensate with their reductions the emissions of those other nations. In other words, in order to limit warming in the short term and even in the long term, below 1.5 degrees, emissions reductions have to be around 8 or 10% per year at the planetary level, and that is not on the table right now.
What is missing from the COP28 agreement? There is no explicit mention of reductions in methane, which is a greenhouse gas with a capacity to trap heat at the Earth's surface far superior to that of CO2. Methane stays in the atmosphere for 10 years and CO2 for at least 100 years. But when methane degrades, it is converted to CO2, meaning it continues to heat but less efficiently. And that's why methane emissions are very relevant in the short and long term.
On the other hand, assuming that the global average temperature will continue to rise in the coming years, we are faced with two aspects that require adequate funding but the implementation plan is not written. The first is thatEfforts to adapt to the effects of climate change will be needed and will require financing, especially for countries with economies in transition. And the funding they need is nowhere near what countries have pledged at this summit. And secondly, countries that do not have enough technology to transition away from the use of coal, oil and gas, will need a transfer of technology which, again, will require a very ambitious implementation plan and at the moment that ambition is not included in any document.

What did you think of the fact that the climate summit was held in a petrostate like the Emirates and that the president of the COP was Sultan Al Jaber, and chairman of the oil company Adnoc? On a particular level, I didn't like it because it seemed to me that it sends a message about the great influence that the fossil fuel sector has always had on any discourse on the knowledge of climate change and its causes, which are basically the emissions of fossil fuels associated with human activity. Since the 1970s, it has sown doubts. And that led to the controversy over the statements of the COP28 president himself. Secondly, we have to take into account that climate change is a global problem, we cannot perceive it from the point of view of the Western world and we have to give voice and put the discussion also in an environment in which other countries are going to have to make efforts and sacrifices to meet what we need to limit warming. And on the other hand, I think it was good that it was being held in Dubai because it put on the table for the first time the fundamental role played by the commitment to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
You mentioned those statements by the president of COP28 who, although he later said that they had been misinterpreted, stated that "there is no science, no scenario that says that the elimination of fossil fuels is what is going to achieve the 1.5ºC goal". Is there such a science?
Yes of course. Not only does this science exist, but it has been working in this direction for many years. Without reducing the use of fossil fuels plus other efforts, it is impossible to keep global warming below the 1.5 degree threshold. During COP28, an analysis was published revealing that the US, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Norway share 51% of new oil and gas exploitation projects until 2050. The U.S. produces almost as much oil as Russia and Saudi Arabia combined, and since they started fracking technologies and the barrel of oil was above $50, large-scale fossil fuel production became economically viable, that's a reality. Some of the oil majors are based in Europe. Norway is a major producer of oil and gas, and so is the United Kingdom. Holland was because it was in the North Sea. It is important not to be hypocritical and to put everyone's responsibility on the table.
The duration and organization of the COPS, in which the last day is reached with a text on which there is still a lot of work to be done, arouse criticism and also sometimes question its usefulness. ¿How do you perceive them? Are they a must-have? I think it is natural that it takes time to reach an agreement, if in a meeting of neighbors to install an elevator enmities and arguments arise, think about what a global challenge with a socioeconomic impact of billions of euros entails. We can all see how complicated it is. For me, the fact that these summits happen is very important. Although the results are often disappointing, the world would be far worse off without climate summits. They are fundamental because it is about deciding at a global level what we want society to be like in the remainder of the century and beyond. That's what's at stake in those conversations. You co-authored the IPCC's Fifth and Sixth Major Assessment Reports, which are used by politicians to negotiate at climate summits. Do you feel like you're being listened to? Undoubtedly, here in Europe we see how the European Commission works and countries such as Spain, which follow quite closely what these reports collect. And also in South America. This is not to say that they pay attention to the recommendations that may emerge from those reports. I reiterate that these reports do not make recommendations that are politically prescriptive, but provide information and decision-making opportunities. But they do listen, and in fact, many of the countries that we think are against any agreement are very participatory in the processes of approving these reports, which are not reports by scientists for scientists, but reports that are written by scientists at the request of governments, which are the ones that determine what problems need to be addressed. We worked for years to address these questions and the final report was adopted unanimously by all governments.
Is 2023 on track to be the warmest year on record? What will this string of hot years mean for us? Ecosystems and societies will have to adapt. For example, the fact that Malaga recorded 29.5 degrees Celsius on Tuesday, its temperature record for December, can be seen as an anecdote, thinking that the tourist season can be extended, but also in terms of impact. A temperature of 29.5 degrees Celsius in an area severely affected by the availability of water causes the evaporation of surface water that should replenish aquifers and water reserves at this time. That succession of days with anomalous heat means that ecosystems in the south and east of the peninsula are under stress for which they are not prepared. And that unavailable water is going to affect water availability in spring and summer. Having more than 35 degrees in Cordoba in April or almost 30 in Malaga in December has consequences, such as the risk of spreading infectious diseases that were not common in these areas.

• Environment
• Climate change