Thanks for the invite. It is great to have you in this studio. Lets start with a blunt first question. Is it time for the International Community to junk this idea that theres any 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 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 might just teeter over that 1. 5, and then its possible in years to come, 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 a average warming 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 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. But you have to safeguard your credibility, dont you . And, you know, youve been at this Climate Science and having a big 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, you know, 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, 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 at 1. 5 with just 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 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 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 of 3 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 fossilfuels 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 Wor