IPCC AR6 Climate Change 2021: What’s New

On August 6, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the first part of its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), focusing on the scientific basis underpinning change-related policies by the international community. More than 14,000 citations were referenced in the AR6 and a total of 78,007 expert and government review comments were included.

The IPCC’s critical findings from this report include:

The global surface temperature is 1.09°C (1.96°F) warmer than it was in 1900.
It is unequivocal: Human activity is responsible for global warming.
If current emission levels are maintained, it is highly likely that global warming will exceed 1.5℃ above preindustrial levels and continue to accelerate during the 21st century.
Extreme weather, heatwaves, floods have become more frequent and intense.

Six days after this first section of AR6 was released, the third section of the report (not planned for publication until next year) was leaked by a group of scientists concerned that governments could water down the publication since they have the authority to revise the ‘Summary for Policy Makers’. The leaked report states that the rich are more responsible for global warming than the poor. According to the Guardian, the report concludes “The top 10% of emitters globally, who are the wealthiest 10%, contribute between 36 and 45% of emissions, which is 10 times as much as the poorest 10%, who are responsible for only about three to 5%.”

Under the Paris Agreement, 191 countries agreed to meet every five years to review implementation progress and prepare updated Nationally Determined Contributions to emission reductions. The first meeting, ‘Global Stocktake’ will be held in 2023 and the complete version of the AR6 will be published just before the meeting. Findings from AR6 and the leaked third report should serve as a wake-up call to nations taking part in the Paris Agreement, whose main objective is to keep global temperature rise below 2°C.

Without deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from wealthier nations, global temperature rise will exceed that threshold. Carbon in the atmosphere has been rising steadily and is currently at an all-time high. It’s time for governments and large corporations to innovate and take-action to drastically reduce emissions to avoid the devasting consequences of further warming.

Jimin Kim Communications Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

Repeating History: 'Climate Injustice’ in United States

In 1995, a heatwave in Chicago in July killed more than 700 people in five days—the most devastating climate disaster in Illinois history. State authorities explained that the high fatality rate was due to an inadequate local heat warning system, lack of ambulance services, and an aging population in urban areas. Analysis by Eric Klinenberg, author of Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago, however, points to causes more closely related to social equity. Klinenberg’s map of heat-related deaths in Chicago matches the distribution of poverty and urban abandonment. The 2018 documentary film, Cooked: Survival by Zip Code highlights a surprisingly close correlation between heat wave deaths and areas that are food deserts and have a high incidence of gun-related crimes, diabetes, breast cancer, unemployment, and heart disease, and low high school completion rates.

Chicago’s social disaster of 25 years ago is still repeating itself today. According to a recent study published in the journal Nature Communications, heat stress—a significant risk to public health—is unequally distributed across income groups in major U.S. cities. More people of color live in places with little green space and lots of driveways, buildings, and blacktop.

Due to the urban heat islands effect, cities with more than a million people are about 1.8-5.4°F (1-3°C) warmer than average and in the evening, cities can be 22°F(12°C) warmer than the surrounding areas. Humid regions and cities with denser populations experience the most significant temperature differences. Urban heat islands form as a result of several factors: 1) Hard, dry surfaces like sidewalks and roofs in urban areas provide less shade and moisture than natural landscapes; 2) heat is generated from human activities such as vehicles, A/C, and industrial facilities; and 3) the spacing of buildings influences wind flow and release solar energy. The urban heat island effect is not just about temperature but more about human health, well-being and quality of life. Dense residential areas and industrial zones paved with asphalt absorb and radiate solar energy while large parks and green spaces cool down the surrounding areas.

According to the joint research by NPR and University of Maryland’s Howard Center, three-quarters of the 97 most populous U.S. cities show that areas with higher temperatures were more impoverished. In other words, low-income households in large cities are more exposed to heatwaves than wealthier households as global warming accelerates. The heat mapping project at Portland State University also shows that the temperature can vary as much as 20°F across different parts of the same city. For example, in Baltimore, rowhouse areas where many low-income families live are hotter, and the residential regions around parks are relatively cool, resulting in a temperature difference of more than 10°F (see Figure 1).

Measures to reduce climate injustices associated with urban heat islands are a growing area of urban policy and planning. Baltimore’ ‘B’more Cool’ project, launched in 2014, works to improve our understanding of urban heat islands and identify ways to reduce their impacts. With the collaboration of scientists, urban designers, city officials and local community groups, Baltimore has installed cool roofs, replaced vacant lot spaces with community green spaces, and opened more cooling centers to improve community resilience. Washington D.C. has a goal to cover 40 percent of the city with the tree canopy and the Portland city council has proposed new requirements to limit the amount of pavement and asphalt-covered area. Although programs like these will take some time to reduce urban heat island impacts, their existence is a positive step towards addressing critical social equity concerns.

Jimin Kim Communications Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series

The Dirty Truth: Green Washing

Earlier this year, Sierra Club released ‘The Dirty Truth About Utility Climate Pledge’, describing many utility climate pledges as ‘greenwashing’ after analyzing 50 companies’ plans to retire coal, stop constructing new gas plants, and build new clean energy. According to the Sierra Club, most of these climate plans were designed to mollify the public instead of reducing carbon emissions.

Greenwashing’s aim is to make people believe that the company is doing more to protect the environment than it really is. The term ‘greenwashing’ was initially coined in 1986 by environmentalist Jay Westervel who argued that the hotel industry promoted reusing towels as an eco-friendly strategy when, in fact, it was a cost-saving measure. As more consumers become environmentally conscious, greenwashing is becoming a widespread phenomenon across many industries.

Image Source: Sierra Club, The Dirty Truth About Utility Climate Pledges — Image Source: Sierra Club, *The Dirty Truth About Utility Climate Pledges*

In the financial sector, green bonds and green funds are issued by companies claiming to be eco-friendly. For example, ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) funds are portfolios investing in companies that aim to have eco-friendly, sustainable, and social impacts in the world. However, six of the 20 largest ESG funds have invested in ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil firm. Two of these funds own stakes in Aramco (a Saudi Arabian oil company) and one holds shares in a Chinese coal-mining company. ESG funds, marketed as investing in sustainability and the environment, have substantial investments in fossil fuels and other business interests with negative environmental impacts.

In April, New York City filed a lawsuit against Exxon, BP, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute for attempting to influence customers to think their companies’ actions are not harmful to the environment when they have actually worsened the climate crisis. The lawsuit states that one Shell online campaign describing the company as using cleaner energy solutions is defrauding because it doesn’t mention the company’s main business, fossil fuel extraction, and development.

Greenwashing is also a prevalent practice in the food and farming industry. PETA helped consumers to file a lawsuit in federal court against Vital Farms, a leading seller of pasture-raised eggs and poultry. Consumers suing the farm state that, “Vital Farms is no different from factory poultry except that the chickens are fed grass instead of feed. Male chicks are slaughtered and hens are debeaked for egg production.” According to PETA, Vital Farms is deceiving consumers and investors while selling its products at a much higher price than regular eggs.

Sierra Club’s “Dirty Truth” report suggests three ways to reach meaningful climate goals: (1) be legally binding; (2) apply to all subsidiary companies; and (3) include a short-term target by 2030. Last year the EU prepared a draft taxonomy that defines and distinguishes environmentally sustainable economic activities. The taxonomy, so-called ‘Delegated Act’ can help to prevent greenwashing by classifying and labeling environmentally sustainable economic activities by industry. These definitions are expected to apply to EU companies starting in 2022.

In the United States, federal regulation of greenwashing is currently achieved in two ways: Regulating deceptive advertising through Section 5 of the FTCA (Federal Trade Commission Act); and private lawsuits enforcing the Lanham Act. The Biden administration is working on new measures to reduce and control greenwashing, such as creating new climate change units at Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Despite these legislative efforts to stop greenwashing, businesses’ desire for shortcuts and loopholes will persist. Companies that turn away from the truth and choose greenwashing, however, risk negative publicity and potential lawsuits when their actions are discovered.

Jimin Kim Communications Assistant

This is a part of the AEC Blog series