Possibility of limiting worldwide Temperature Rise to below the 1. 5 degrees celsius . When we produced our landmark report five years ago, we said it was possible within the Laws Of Physics and chemistry, and the biggest obstacle to keeping within the limit was actually on the social and institutional side. We, i think, now need to move to the position, we have to look very hard at whether we will be pushing against technical and economic barriers in terms of limiting warming to1. 5. It is not absolutely impossible, but the chances are diminishing. And, really, its hanging on a thread at the moment. Right. Isnt that a tactful way of saying, im not in a position to be conclusive about this, but as far as im concerned, as an experienced scientist, it is simply not going to happen . The average Temperature Rise is going to go appreciably beyond 1. 5. Yeah, ipcc� s job is to assess the literature that we have out there already, and we havent got quite the literature yet to absolutely write off the 1. 5 limit. And we need to be very careful about what we mean by 1. 5 degrees. Mm hm. We mean a 20 year average of temperatures by the end of the 21st century. And it is possible that we could go over 1. 5 degrees temporarily, by perhaps a tenth of a degree, Something Like that. Ah, i see what youre saying. So, this is a 20 year average, but. Im interested to see that the barcelona supercomputing center, which i imagine youre familiar with, has suggested there is actually a very strong chance that in 2024, if you average it over the year, we will go beyond that threshold. But youre saying that might be interesting, but it wouldnt be conclusive about a longer term average . No, we are very specific that 1. 5 is a 20 year average, to take out all the variations that happen to take place from year to year. So, one year, certainly its things to be worried about, but its not absolutely conclusive. See, you as an experienced scientist are saying to me, well, you know, We Mightjust Teeter over that 1. 5, and then its possible in years to come we might come back, suggesting that were somewhere in that ballpark. There are many of your colleagues in the Climate ScienceCommunity Many of whom work with you on the ipcc who have been polled, most recently by the Guardian Newspaper. And almost 80 of them apparently foresee an average warming of 2. 5 degrees celsius, way beyond 1. 5. Yeah, these conclusions are actually entirely in line with the last report that we produced. We were very clear if governments carry on with the policies they have in place at the moment, we are headed towards perhaps 3 degrees warming by the end of the century. So, i think what the poll. Forgive me. Whats really important when you say that is, you mean if governments carry on with the policies they currently have, which include some commitments not going far enough for their critics, but some commitments to big reductions in emissions. Youre saying even with those current policies in place, we could be heading to 3 degrees . Yeah, lets distinguish between the targets government have set and the policies on the ground, because not all of the targets can be met with the current policies. You would have to step up the current policies even to hit the current targets. So, when scientists tell us that were on our way to 2. 5 or 3 degrees, thats as much a statement about their belief about what governments will do, rather than a scientific statement about the way that the atmosphere operates. And it is not inconsistent at all with what we said in the last report. Some scientists and, again, im referring to this Guardian Newspaper poll and survey some scientists talk about their absolute despair with where we are and where they believe we are heading. Do you think despair is a very worrying emotion for Climate Scientists to be feeling right now . Its one that would bother me a lot because we mustnt be complacent about the scale of the risks that were actually facing for the planet, in terms of human systems, in terms of natural systems. But we also need to remember it is within our grasp to avoid the worst effects of Climate Change if we can up our Policy Ambition first of all by reducing emissions, but also taking steps to adapt to the kind of Climate Change which is inevitable. Sure. But you have to safeguard your credibility, dont you . And, you know, youve been at this Climate Science and having a big public platform for some years. Im just looking back at quotes of yours going back this is two years to 2022, when you said quite explicitly, it is now or never for a full on commitment to a low Carbon Economy and society. Well, were two years on from then. If it was now or never then, what is it now . Yeah, hands held up we risk sounding like a broken record on the window of opportunity closing, the now or never. The assessment that weve got, one of the tests that we put in place in the last report was to say in emissions pathways that Limit Warming to 1. 5 degrees, Global Emissions Peak by 2025. Were about 18 months away from that kind of target. And certainly within this decade, i think we will be able to make much more conclusive statements about whether or not this magic number of 1. 5 will be exceeded. Right. Now, to help people make sense of these different numbers, 1. 5 degrees celsius above pre industrial levels as opposed to, say, 2. 5 or even 3 degrees celsius above, how. How much worse is, lets say, 2. 7 degrees celsius than 1. 5 when it comes to real world impacts for people Around The World . Well, if i can bring it a little closely, one of the things we were asked to do was to compare Global Warming at1. 5 withjust 2 degrees. And between 1. 5 and 2 degrees, there are big differences, especially in terms of extreme events intense storms, rainfall, extinction of some species. All of these things, there is a significant difference between 1. 5 or 2 degrees. By the time you get to 3 degrees, we are in very worrying territory indeed, because we could be looking at impacts on the yields of staple crops like rice, maize and wheat. We could be getting it into the zone where you risk major Tipping Points in systems like the Greenland Ice sheets or the west Antarctic Ice sheets. There, youre beginning to take on much bigger risks. So, at the moment, we could keep warming into somewhere between 2 and 3 degrees, based on current policies. Its within our grasp to do far better than that and reduce the worst of the risks. And yet, lets talk about what governments have achieved and not achieved. Youve been going to these so called cop meetings, these global conferences under un auspices, for many, many years. And what is pretty extraordinary to me, given the commitments weve heard year upon year from leaders Around The World, its extraordinary to me that if you actually just look in absolute terms at the amount of Greenhouse Gas emissions going into the planetary atmosphere, they are still rising. Theyre still rising, though lets be slightly optimistic about it. We can actually identify avoided emissions from policies that have already been taken by governments. The Kyoto Protocol has made a difference, support for Renewable Energy has made a big difference, there have been big advances on avoiding deforestation, which have all helped us, but they have not gone far enough. Thats quite clear because we are certainly not on a track to Limit Warming to 1. 5 or even 2 degrees at the moment. And isnt it true to say that there is a fundamental shift going on were in the middle of it of the emissions sort of problem, if you like, shifting from west to east . Its not to absolve the west of responsibility. But in terms of what is happening day on day in terms of emissions, then we have to look at china, we have to look at india, we have to look at those fast growing, developing economies, which now are belching Greenhouse Gas emissions into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. Yeah, so just to say. I mean, Climate Change is a global problem, so every kind of country has to play their part in that. And i dont think, if you pick out countries like india and china, you can say that they are just doing nothing. China. No, im not saying that at all. I just want to be realistic about where the emissions are coming from today. And isnt the clear truth that china stands tall, by far the greatest emitter today across the world . China is the biggest emitter. Its also got the second largest population now in the world, so its not surprising that its emissions are going to be high. And china is doing a lot. Its got the largest deployment of wind energy, solar energy, Electric Vehicles. So, a lot is happening there. The chinese have it in their five year plans that their emissions will peak before the end of this decade, and i dont see any reason to disbelieve them. You believe that . I am happy to. Even though you obviously are very well aware still that so much of their power is coal fired, their Methane Emissions certainly top the world rankings, but you believe that by 2030, theyre going to be significantly better performing . Well, to take an example, Methane Emissions, it is very possible to reduce Methane Emissions very substantially, with a big impact on global temperatures. Its a short lived, powerful Greenhouse Gas, and taking action on methane will make a difference. And as i say, they are displacing fossil fuels within their Energy System by Renewable Energy, by Nuclear Power, that are not leading to emissions. So, theyre heading in the right direction. Now, as chair of this intergovernmental panel, i appreciate that while you are a scientist, everything you say has political ramifications. Are you wary about focusing on what china is doing today, or indeed india . And ijust, by way of parentheses, would note that in the last year, india has opened, started operating new coal fired power plants to the tune of 14gw of power, and its got big plans to expand that over the next few years. Is it difficult for you to put too much emphasis on that side of the Emissions Equation . We have to take a global view of the climate problem, so we would tend to talk about the characteristics of countries rather than singling out individual countries. But its very clear that, for example, countries like india, for example, have done a lot in terms of forests, for example, in terms of abating emissions, taking Carbon Dioxide out of the atmosphere. And ive already mentioned other countries where the investment in Renewable Energy and Electric Vehicles has been impressive. Mmm. I suppose what im striving to understand is the degree to which you have to be political as part of yourjob. Although you and your panel of scientists are there to gather the data, to present it to politicians and have them decide what to do with it, you also surely have to take a view on the degree to which the rich world that is, the world that for hundreds of years has profited from fossil fuel economies the degree to which that rich world now has to be involved in funding a massive Clean Energy Transition for the developing world, the global south call it what you will. I mean, how clearly do you stake out a position on that . Well, we are not advocates, so we dont take out a position in terms of making recommendations. But in our last report, we were very clear about the unequal contributions to emissions, both historically and in the present. Between europe and North America, that accounts for 40 of historical emissions of Greenhouse Gases. Least developed countries and the small island developing states, about 0. 5 each. And its very much the case that those who are most vulnerable to the effects of Climate Change have contributed least. At the moment, south asia, typically, i think about two tonnes of Carbon Dioxide equivalent per head, compared to approaching 20 in North America. There are very big differences, and we mustnt forget that the third goal of the Paris Agreement is about improving the means by which countries can achieve their climate objectives, which does include transfer of finance. Of course it does. Means means money. Yes, it does. Means means money. Means means finance. Yes. Exactly. And look at the economists Nicholas Stern and vera songwe, who did this work and came up with a report suggesting that 2. 1; trillion would be needed by 2030 to shift developing countries and this isnt including china, this is without china to low carbon economies. And they reckon that at least a trillion of that would have to come as a transfer, if you like, a sort of Climate Justice transfer from the rich world to the poor. Does that sound about right to you . Well, in our last report, we were very clear that the amount of finance needed for reducing emissions, if we were going to be compatible with the Paris Agreement, we would need to scale up by a factor of3 to 6. So, it is entirely consistent and i entirely agree. Were talking about trillions, not hundreds of billions. Theres no sign of it happening. Its a lot. Its a lot of money. Its a lot of money and theres no sign of it happening. It is happening. The key to unlocking it is to get more private finance to come into this because, frankly, the Public Sector pockets are not deep enough to make some of these transfers. And we are beginning to see a movement of private finance. Theyre playing for Renewable Energy projects, deforestation, avoided deforestation projects in other parts of the world. And theres a carbon price out there. People are putting a value on carbon, and that will help to stimulate some of these financial flows, cos theres money to be made out of it. Isnt the difficult truth behind a lot of our discussion that there is one industry that has proved to be remarkably resilient, and that is the Oil And Gas Industry . You would like to see fossil fuels phased out, im guessing. That was the language that was sought at the last cop in dubai. We were very careful about the language in our reports. We do not recommend it or advocate it. We will say, if, then if you want to Limit Warming compatible with the Paris Agreement, Fossil Fuel Use will need to go down. And weve quantified it in our report. Hang on. I used the phrase phased out. Are you saying you dont agree that oil and Gas Production need to be, quote unquote, phased out . If were going to Limit Warming within the goal of the Paris Agreement, then absolutely. We talked about transitioning out of fossil fuels, transitioning into. But thats Mealy Mouthed stuff. Transitioning away is easy to sign up to, phasing out is much more concrete. We used the phrase phasing out continually through the last report, alongside transitioning out of fossil fuels and transitioning into renewables. We were very clear that phasing out of fossil fuels or transitioning out however you want to put it is part of it. The key thing for us was the numbers, and we did put numbers on that. Yeah, but isnt. The problem youve got is that whether you use the concrete phasing out or the slightly more ambiguous Transitioning Away From, the world is nowhere near this ambition. Lets start. Before we get to whats happening in developing economies, where theyve discovered oil and gas, lets talk the United States, where oil and Gas Production is on the rise. There are huge ambitions and lets think about what would happen if donald trump came back into power huge ambitions to keep expanding americas domination of the oil and gas business. Yeah. From our point of view, the moment that fossil fuels make a contribution to Climate Change is when theyre burned and emissions take place. In our last report, we were very clear that most of the Fossil Fuel ReservesAround The World would need to stay in the ground if we were to Limit Warming within the terms of the Paris Agreement. We quantified it in the report. And its very clear if people add to these reserves, they pose for themselves the risk of stranded assets, not being able to use these assets in the future. As a scot and a former adviser to the british government, what did you make of the uk government recently deciding it was going to issue new licences for Oil Production in the north sea . Yeah, well, this is a classic example of where ipcc finds it quite difficult to comment on an individual country. But what we would point out from a global perspective if you add to reserves of fossilfuels, it means more of them need to stay in the ground if youre going to Limit Warming in lines with the Paris Agreement. And weve talked about the United States and the uk, and you could argue what theyre doing is sort of backsliding on the decarbonisation, Transitioning Away From fossil fuels argument. If thats what theyre doing, how do you think that works when its seen in the developing world . Im looking at senegal, for example, which is massively expanding its gas output. And the leader of senegal, macky sall, says, leave your resources in the ground . There is absolutely no sense in that, and it is not fair to countries like mine. Well, the importance of equity in Climate Policy is absolutely important. And its not surprising, really, that this issue has come out. I mean, countries like the uk and the us, i have mentioned the fact that europe and North America contributed to 40 of historic emissions of Greenhouse Gases. It is not surprising that the Equity Argument is coming to the fore. Yeah, i should have said former president macky sall, because hes no longer in power. I just wonder, when weve talked about the way in which oil and Gas Production in many ways looks set to expand further, how confident are you that some of the other mitigation weapons, if you like, in the arsenal, how confident are you that they can have a Significant Impact . Im thinking, for example, of Carbon Capture and storage. Yeah, Carbon Capture and storage. I mean, there were big, big ambitions for Carbon Capture and storage about a decade ago. And i think at the moment, weve got about 20, 25 projects running worldwide. Yeah, it hasnt been scaled up at all. It has not been scaled up. Its not because of a fundamental technical problem. We know how to do Carbon Capture and storage. The barrier for Carbon Capture and storage is getting the right kind of Business Models and getting the right kind of Policy Framework in place for it to be carried forward. If you put carbon and put it back under the ground again, its no use to any human being. Its just sitting there. So people need to be paid to do it, and it needs the right kind of Policy Framework put in place for it to happen. And do you think the world has got it wrong on Nuclear Power which, of course, comes with issues about how dangerous it might be, what you do with the radioactive waste, but it is, in the sense of this argument, clean. And many governments have decided it is not a path they want to go down. Ipcc is splendidly agnostic on the question of Nuclear Power. Its very clear. Can you afford to be agnostic on these key issues at this particular time . Its very clear that Different Countries have chosen to go in different directions. Let me just say, in the scenarios that we have been assessing, Nuclear Power expands globally in all of the ambitious mitigation scenarios, so theres no way. Sorry, thats a bit jargonistic, but youre telling me. Oh, sorry. Youre telling me that, in your scenarios, Nuclear Power is a very effective way of combating Dangerous Levels of Global Warming heating . Yeah. Just to say, we dont have scenarios, we assess other peoples scenarios. And in those that are ambitious and are compliant with the Paris Agreement, there is a big expansion of Nuclear Power in these scenarios. It is not as large as the expansion of Renewable Energy, which is becoming increasingly cost effective, but Nuclear Power is part of the picture overall. Will there come a time, do you think, when your advice to politicians, based on the science, is for them to focus more on adaptation to a crisis that is already upon us, rather than mitigation to try and avoid the worst of it . Yeah, i wouldnt characterise it as adaptation versus reducing emissions or mitigation. We need to do the two things at the same time. Yeah, but you talk about means, and there are limited means, so you have to choose priorities. If we decide that, frankly, the situation is so dangerous, the global heating is going to come down this track, then maybe we should reprioritise and put more of that money and priority on adaptation . Yeah, just to say, we are going to spend a lot more effort looking at adapting to Climate Change in this next cycle. Governments have specifically invited to produce reports that are dedicated to the topic of adaptation. But still, the most effective way of avoiding the worst impacts of Climate Change is to avoid putting emissions into the atmosphere in the first place. We looked carefully in the last cycle by comparing the costs of reducing emissions and comparing that with the impacts that would be avoided if you got emissions down. And there is a very clear story that in the long term, this will pay off. Youve been at this for decades. How confident are you that we we human beings as a species are capable of the strategic thinking, the cooperation and collaboration, maybe the selflessness that is sometimes needed to get a Climate Change strategy that works . If we dont let the best be the enemy of the good. And thats a risk. We are making progress at the moment. If i think where we are now compared with where we are 20, 25 years ago, we have come much further. All the countries of the world have now accepted that human beings are unequivocally the cause of the Climate Change that we are seeing. Weve got recently an undertaking to transition away from fossil fuels. We have an expansion of Renewable Energy and Clean Energy Sources that we couldnt have anticipated ten years ago. So, i am optimistic that were going in the right direction. What the challenge is, can we up our efforts to reach the kind of goals that we set ourselves under the Paris Agreement . Jim skea, i thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hello, Thanks Forjoining me. We had some wet weather today, but wednesday, for some of us, will be a wash out, Persistent Rain, heavy at times on the way, and its starting this evening. Now, heres the forecast. It has already been quite wet in east anglia and the south east. The rain will spread into the midlands in the night, itll merge into the peak district, and then spread into Northern England by the early hours of wednesday morning. It could reach Eastern Parts of wales, too, but scotland and Northern Ireland, apart from a few showers here and there, actually looking generally dry. So, tomorrows forecast, then this is the morning, a widespread area of rain. Well zoom in and see what is happening around 3 or apm, and by that stage, i think the heaviest of the rain will have cleared east anglia, the south east, and along the southern counties, blustery winds and occasional showers. So, heres that Persistent Rain from the midlands, wales, the north of england, pretty much, well, almost everywhere. That rain isjust nudging into southern scotland, more showery, though, across the highlands. But look at Northern Ireland escapes most of the rain if anything, that rain should reach you later in the afternoon, probablyjust into the east of Northern Ireland. Now, this is an area of low pressure thats parked itself in the north sea, and that Weather Front will just spiral around the centre of the low,so in some areas, the rain will keep falling in the same place for a couple of days, so really a substantial amount of rainfall is possible. Now, by thursday, the rain will be, well, not quite as heavy, and it will be more patchy, but i think a lot of cloud, and at least a chance of encountering some rain on thursday. The best of the weather in the south, the south east, as well as east anglia in fact, in norwich, london, portsmouth, plymouth, it could actually end up being a fairly bright if not sunny day, but cool. Now, how much rain are we going to get . Well, through wednesday and thursday, a lot. These teal colours, across the pennines and generally Northern England, could indicate as much as a0 or 50 millimetres of rain, but the met office is suggesting that, in some spots, in the extreme case, we could have as much as 100 millimetres of rain, or more, and that will lead to some flooding. Now, heres the good news as we head towards the end of the week, and into the weekend, the weather will slowly settle down. There are indications that, as we go through the weekend, into bank holiday monday, we are going to have primarily dry and bright weather, with just a scattering of showers, so some good news for you there. Bye bye. Auto live from london, this is bbc news the head of Singapore Airlines apologises after a passenger dies following severe turbulence on a flight from london to singapore. We are very sorry for the traumatic experience that everyone on board sq321 went through. America says russia may have launched a satellite into orbit, which is capable of attacking other satellites. These are live pictures from tehran where crowds are gathering for the funeral of president Ebrahim Raisi who died in a Helicopter Crash on sunday. And in business today, a big drop in the rate of inflation in the uk is expected, so will this mean Interest Rates are cut injune . Hello. Im sally bundock. We start at Singapores Changi airport, where many of the passengers and crew who were on board Singapore Airlines flight 321 have been able to complete theirjourney following an episode of severe turbulence, in which one person died and many more were injured. A Relief Flight took 143 passengers and crew to singapore, but 85 other people remained in bangkok, where the plane was forced to make an emergency landing. Many are receiving medical attention