First this is based on the executive summary don’t seem to have published the complete report. Based on the summary it seems to be consistently gloomy and pessimistic when in reality our situation is very positive and doing huge amounts. They do that by emphasizing the negatives and ignoring all the positives.
For instance on the warming level it says that we are headed or 3.9 C if we don’t implement current policies - but we are implementing them. That is if we completely stop all action on climate change which is not plausible. So that is very extreme negative framing to write it in such a way as to suggest that’s a possibility.
And they don’t mention the triple renewables pledge which can keep us within 1.5 C.
They don’t discuss it and find problems with it, just don’t mention it although that is the COP target that all countries agreed to in COP28.
So you can see the pessimistic tone in this quote for instance:
Without the implementation of current policies, the GEO-7 Current Trends Scenario projects
a further increase to 3.9°C by 2100.
[I.E. IF ALL COUNTRIES IMMEDIATELY STOP ALL CLIMATE ACTION AND MAKE RENEWABLES ILLEGAL AND FORCE PEOPLE TO BURN LOTS OF COAL INSTEAD]
While a continuation of the mitigation efforts implied by current policies is estimated to limit global average temperature increase to 2.9°C over
[THIS ASSUMES NONE OF THE COUNTRIES WITH NET ZERO PLEDGES DO ANYTHING TO ACHIEVE THEIR PLEDGES WHEN IN REALITY MOST HAVE A HISTORY OF EQUALLING OR EXCEEDING THEIR PLEDGES] the course of the century, full implementation and continuation of mitigation efforts implied by conditional nationally determined contributions could limit this increase to 2.4°C.3 To hold global average temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels would require cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 42 per cent by 2030 and 57 per cent by 2035 relative to 2019 levels [THIS IS OFTEN MISQUOTED - THIS IS JUST ONE WAY TO STAY WITHIN 1.5 C NOT THE ONLY WAY]
They don’t mention the triple renewables pledge which is one way to stay within 1.5 C. Except one mention for some reason under Western Europe USA and Canada. They don’t say why only Western Europe US and Canada would triple renewables. That is on page 46. In reality China and India are installing lots of renewables and the world is ahead of the curve especially on solar.
https://wedocs.unep.org/rest/api/core/bitstreams/4b2702f5-f990-49c5-9dca-e1c9bc23d49f/content
BLOG: We are ahead of target for 1.5 C with the COP28 triple renewables pledge
— media and academics lag far behind what’s happening in the real world when they claim we are headed for 2.6 C
You can read it here:
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/world-is-overachieving-for-15-c-with
BLOG: 1.5°C still feasible with COP28 agreement to triple renewables by 2030
— NOT yet committed to 1.6°C or 1.7 C
— though helping weaker economies and protecting nature is as important as -0.2°C reduction
You can read it here: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/paris-agreement-15-c-is-still-alive
They mention the one million species at risk of extinction from IPBES but they don’t talk about all the things we are doing to stop and reverse biodiversity loss. No mention of the 30% of land coasts inland waters and sea pledged to manage sustainably by 2030.
Then - as a result of not mentioning all the positive things we are doing and assuming as a high end scenario that we essentially make renewables illegal then they naturally come to very pessimistic conclusions.
Their conclusions are good. Good to involve local communities and indigenous peoples. Need for the sustainable development path. Need to keep warming well below 2 C etc.
What they don’t explain is we are already doing those things and that’s partly why it seems so pessimistic.
And generally hyping up the negative and ignoring the positive.
I think it is an example of extreme n negative framing this idea that many have that if you really ramp up all the negatives and don’t mention anything positive and then say “If we do things completely differently starting from today we can solve this” that it will inspire people to act.
But in reality - that’s called negative framing. That has the opposite effect on most people of leading to disengagement barriers, inactivity, the opposite of what they want.
They should have a ratio of 3 positive framing for each climate threat mentioned.
Typically it’s more the other way around indeed often 10 or more climate threats for every positive framing. Which is why it makes the situation seem hopless. But it isn’t. It is just a style of writing and presentation that some people mistakenly think are the way to get people to act.
It’s not true and not an accurate presentation of the situation which is very positive.
It’s about nothing succeeds like success. That is the way the psychology works. We are inspired by other people who do positive things and achieve positive things to do the same ourselves.
Most people if told that nobody anywhere int he world is doing anything to solve climate problems or stop extinction of species wont’ be fired up to do something about it but will just feel hopeless and not think it is worth doing anything.
While if the are told they are part of a vibrant community of numerous people doing many different things around the world, which is the truth, most people are inspired to action in the same way. It’s the opposite of what activists would expect.
BLOG: How to motivate your self, and others to act on climate change, biodiversity or anything else
— tips from psychology
— e.g. for maximum engagement present 3 positive or supporting framings for each climate threat
You can read it here:
https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/How-to-motivate-your-self-and-others-to-act-on-climate-change-biodiversity-or-anything-else-tips-from-psychology
They do this report roughly every 6 years. Last time in 2019. About it here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Environment_Outlook
