Last month the world got to meet Jim Skea as newly elected head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or
IPCC, the U.N. body that provides regular summaries about peer-reviewed climate science. In one of his first interviews with the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel, Skea suggested that we should not “despair and fall into a state of shock" about the possibility that global temperatures might increase by 1.5°C, or 2.7°F. I must confess, my shock and despair have more to do with his statement.
It comes across as dramatically out of touch with the reality of the growing number of people whose lives have already been severely impacted by the disruptions caused by global heating, including the thousands who
have drowned in the Mediterranean and the millions who are fleeing a toxic mix of conflict and climate disruption in their home countries.
Yes, Skea also said that a world that warms more than 1.5°C will be “a more dangerous world” and he may have aimed to sound reassuring somehow? But it did not land that way. I recently hosted 26-year old Ilyess El Kortbi of the youth climate movement Fridays for Future Ukraine, for example, who had also read the interview and said they would not dream of choosing such words.
Scientists may agree with Skea that climate change does not yet pose an “existential threat to humanity.” But how useful is that statistical assessment to people struggling with or witnessing others struggling with extreme weather, wildfires, and flooding today?
”It’s hard not to ‘fall into a state of shock’ when your home is the battlefield of a climate war,” they told me, “it’s hard not to when you’re one of the 23 million Ukrainians who had to flee or got displaced from their homes due to a war ignited by our incessant use of fossil fuels.”
Whether flooding in Pakistan or drought in Yemen or wildfires in Canada, like El Kortbi, there are millions around the world bearing the brunt of climate change as we speak. Given that the world has so far only warmed 1.1°C, despair and shock at what 1.5°C may mean should be considered a perfectly logical—indeed healthy—reaction.
More importantly, you could well argue that the very fact that many scientists like Skea have opted for caution and conservative estimates for decades is precisely the reason why emissions continue to rise. In other words: People do actually listen to scientists, and Skea’s pronouncement sends the message that there’s no need for drastic action, that all will likely be well. That’s the wrong message. It’s probably not even the one Skea wanted to put out there.
Skea may be worried that people will accuse scientists of exaggeration if there are still functioning human societies left at 1.5°C of warming. But he certainly chose the worst possible moment to downplay the dangers—in what was about to
become yet another hottest month on record.
Scientists may agree with Skea that climate change does not yet pose an “existential threat to humanity.” But how useful is that statistical assessment to people struggling with or witnessing others struggling with extreme weather, wildfires, and flooding today?
People know “the world won’t end” at 1.5°C of warming, but as humans we also have the capacity to imagine what happens far beyond our own existence. And we know human existence has been just a blip in the life span of planet Earth, which has no need for human civilization. Perhaps it’s time for the IPCC to invite some humanists into their midst to provide scientists with a better understanding of humanity.
And after all, for many people it is already too late now. Acknowledging that and spurring everyone into action would be a better strategy for Skea in his new position. Instead, his call for a “balanced” approach only benefits those, like the fossil fuel industry giants and their puppets in politics, who prop up and profit from the status quo while continuing to fund climate
denial and misinformation.
Skea apparently said he fears that communicating gloom and doom only paralyzes people instead of motivating them into action. As a scientist he should know that is simply not true. Indeed, the opposite is, as
a recent study found: “Repeated exposure to the threatening headlines led people to feel they could do more to influence how humanity could steer itself away from the worst dangers of global warming. They also reported feeling the issue of climate change was more important.”
I hope our new IPCC head takes this to heart. Instead of calling for a balanced approach, he should emulate and—more importantly—shore up and support U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, who has been ringing the alarm bells and speaking openly about the
climate emergency. Guterres certainly understands the science, but in addition he has the benefit of first-hand knowledge of the impacts on the ground. Perhaps it might help Skea if he tagged along on a couple of those visits. Who knows—he, too, might feel shock and despair if he saw close up what climate change is doing to humans already today.
