✖
Checklist for assessing consistency with climate science
- Is climate action treated as an overriding priority, i.e. as an emergency?
- Is a limit to global warming specified, such as single limit of 1.5°C or a set of limits such as 1.5°C and 1.6°C?
- Are budget calculations based on the global carbon budgets for the temperature limits specified?
- Is equity between nations incorporated when calculating country carbon budgets?
- Are all CO2 emissions included in budget calculations, particularly those embodied in imports and exports, and those from aviation and shipping?
- Is the size of annual emission cuts specified e.g. double digit percentage cuts in developed countries?
- Are any policies consistent with emission cuts needed?
- Are false solutions avoided?
The elements of the checklist
1. Is climate action treated as an overriding priority, i.e. as an emergency?
Documents should state that it is emergency climate action that is required, not mere gradual decarbonisation. This is on the basis:
- the IPCC recommendations in 2021 were "immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions" [1]
- Antonio Guterres (UN Secretary-General) declared (2022) "This is a climate emergency" [2]
- the UK Parliament declared a Climate Emergency in 2019, and many other countries did the same
- the scale of harm being done by continuing CO2 emissions - deaths, refugees, biodiversity loss etc. and the gross injustice that the people who are suffering the most from climate change are the ones least responsible for it - see document 144
- the UK’s fair share of the global carbon budget carbon budget for 1.5°C runs out imminently, requiring 20% annual emission cuts (Net Zero 2030) - or 10% annual emission cuts for 1.6°C (Net Zero 2035) - see document 177 - and similar urgency in other high-emission countries.
2. Is a limit to global warming specified, such as single limit of 1.5°C or a set of limits such as 1.5°C and 1.6°C?
The aim of the policy should be clearly stated in terms of a limit to the rise in global temperature. This is often set as 1.5°C for several good reasons - see document 152. Now that the 1.5°C limit is being approached, it may make sense to also consider 1.6°C, but every fraction of a degree makes an enormous difference to climate deaths, refugees and biodivesity loss.
3. Are budget calculations based on the global carbon budgets for the temperature limits specified?
The mechanism for limiting global warming should be stated or implied to be limiting further total global CO2 emissions to the CO2 budget specified by the IPCC, or a similar authoritative source.See document 93.
4. Is equity between nations incorporated when calculating country carbon budgets?
The implications of the international commitments to global equity should be properly taken into account, i.e. that developed nations cut emissions faster than the global average.The basis for any calculation should be explicitly stated, e.g. as equal per capita shares.
See document 122.
See document 122.
5. Are all CO2 emissions included in budget calculations, particularly those embodied in imports and exports, and those from aviation and shipping?
See document 31.
6. Is the size of annual emission cuts specified e.g. double digit percentage cuts in developed countries?
With the UK's per capita "fair share" CO2 budget running out imminently at the current emission rate, radical emission cuts of over 25% per year are needed in order to comply with the UK's commitments to a limit of 1.5°C, as shown in the analysis from CUSP at Surrey University [3]:
See also document 177.
See also document 177.
7. Are any policies consistent with emission cuts needed?
Do any policies discussed comply with this timescale for urgent radical cuts in emissions?
8. Are false solutions avoided?
including avoiding
- Net zero dates - e.g. the UK Government's Net Zero 2050 timescale does not meet the UK's Paris Agreement commitments - it would take three times the UK's per capita "fair share" of the global CO2 budget for 1.5°C - see document 109
- Tree-planting
- Offsetting
- "Hydrogen power"
Why is a checklist needed?
While there is little dispute that the climate is changing, or that it is due to human activity, or that climate change needs to be limited, the actions that would limit climate change are not being taken.The implications of the scientific consensus together with mankind's stated commitments to human rights are not being translated into action. The logical steps that should convert the scientific consensus into action are not being acted on. This is termed implicatory denial by sociologists - see document 147. There are concerns that climate denial in various forms is near universal across society [4].
Messaging that is inconsistent with the scientific consensus has been identified as a barrier that is delaying the radical action needed [5]. In response to this problem, Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has launched its Science Oath for the Climate [6], which commits signatories to
"explain honestly, clearly and without compromise, what scientific evidence tells us about the seriousness of the climate emergency..."
and
"speak out about what is not compatible with the commitments, or is likely to undermine them".
A checklist should help identify where the failures are occurring, and help to correct them. Checklists are used in many situations to ensure adherence to high standards in complex areas. For example, checklists of statistical methods are widely used in medical journals (e.g. The British Medical Journal [7]) to assist the writing of articles and for reviewers to assess articles that have been submitted for publication.
A checklist rather than a scoring system
An alternative to a checklist is a scoring system covering the same points - and a scoring system was piloted by the author in a study of UK government climate scientists - see document 133. A checklist seems preferable for the following reasons.- a checklist is more flexible, and so has a wider ranger of applications
- in many circumstances, a score of 90% is excellent, but it is generally not acceptable in documents in science or medicine: if a scientific paper has just one major flaw, it should not be published until that flaw is corrected, and if just one major injury is mishandled in a patient with multiple injuries, the patient's survival is put in jeopardy. The climate emergency requires attention to detail, and 90% perfect is not good enough.
- a checklist avoids the problem of how to score inapplicable items - whether they should be given the minimum or the maximum score
- a checklist feels less confrontational, something that is of assistance rather than something being used as a weapon.
References
| [1] | https://un-spbf.org/event/ipcc-press-release-climate-action-cannot-wait/ |
| [2] | https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2022-04-04/secretary-generals-video-message-the-launch-of-the-third-ipcc-report-scroll-down-for-languages |
| [3] | See the commentary at document 128; or the report: Jackson T (2021) Zero Carbon Sooner: Revised case for an early zero carbon target for the UK. CUSP Working Paper No 29. Guildford: University of Surrey. https://cusp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/WP-29-Zero-Carbon-Sooner-update.pdf |
| [4] | Iain Walker and Zoe Leviston (2019) There are three types of climate change denier - and most of us are at least one The Conversation https://theconversation.com/there-are-three-types-of-climate-change-denier-and-most-of-us-are-at-least-one-124574 |
| [5] | Turning delusion into climate action - Prof Kevin Anderson, an interview (2020) Responsible Science https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/turning-delusion-climate-action-prof-kevin-anderson-interview |
| [6] | Scientists for Global Responsibility. A science oath for the climate: text and signing (2020) https://www.sgr.org.uk/projects/science-oath-climate-text-and-signing |
| [7] | BMJ (1996) Checklists for statisticians BMJ 1996;312:43 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7022.43a |
First published: 22 Jul 2022