Scientists protest for climate action in wake of new climate report

A group of international scientists turned to civil disobedience to grab the attention of lawmakers, citizens and the media after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest report on the Mitigation of Climate Change on April 4. 

Two days after the report was published, scientists chained themselves to the doors of JP Morgan Chase and Co. in downtown Los Angeles, one of the top financiers of fossil fuel projects. German scientists glued themselves to a bridge near the German Parliament, Spanish scientists threw fake blood over the bricks of the National Congress and some chained themselves to the White House fence. These protests were organized by Scientist Rebellion — an international organization of scientists advocating for stronger climate action. According to the group,more than 1,000 scientists in 26 countries took part in protests and dozens of scientists were arrested.

“We’ve been trying to warn you guys for so many decades,” Peter Kalmus, a NASA climate scientist who participated in the Los Angeles protest, said in a video. “The scientists of the world have been being ignored. And it’s gotta stop. We’re going to lose everything.”

 The latest report was the third and final section of the IPCC’s sixth review on the science related to climate change. “[The] report is an update of the global progress that has been made towards climate change mitigation and an assessment of efforts and tools available to cut emissions,” Cathy Whitlock, MSU Earth science professor, wrote in response to questions emailed to MSU professors. 

Greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2025 to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis, the report concluded. IPCC reports take around five to six years to complete, and with only three years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this report is the last chance to cut emissions. “It’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F); without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible,” Jim Skea, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, said in a statement with the release of the report.

“This report of the IPCC is a litany of broken climate promises,” António Guterres, UN secretary-general, said in a video message after the release of the report. “It is a file of shame, cataloging the empty pledges that put us firmly on track towards an unlivable world. We are on a fast track to climate disaster.”

 Emissions must be reduced by at least 43% by 2030 to limit global warming by 1.5°C, as targeted by the Paris Agreement. According to the IPCC report, the world is not on track to limit warming to 1.5°C and it is “almost inevitable” that global temperatures will rise above 1.5°C. However, the report details that the worst consequences of climate change — severe droughts, wildfires, hurricanes and floods that put people, industries, economies and ecosystems at risk — can be avoided if we start reducing emissions now.

 “The bad news in the report is that global emissions are still rising. But there is a lot of good news in this report,” Richard Ready, MSU economics professor, responded. “The report says to me that we need to get to zero carbon emissions quickly, we know how to do it and we can afford to do it.”

 While the report found that average greenhouse gas emissions were the highest in human history between 2010 and 2019, the rate of emissions growth is decreasing. The report also noted that renewable energy costs have dropped by as much as 85% in the last decade. Policies and laws that help enhance energy efficiency and renewable energy and efforts to reduce deforestation have increased, according to the IPCC.

 “The report makes it clear that there are mitigation options available that have the potential to have substantial impacts,” Eric Austin, MSU Political Science professor, responded. “Those options will require international as well as coordinated action across jurisdictions domestically. This will require not only political will and commitment, it will also require substantial efforts to untangle a whole series of interconnected technical, economic, policy and social systems.”

 The report discussed many options for quickly reducing emissions, including commuting and diet choices, sustainable land use, financial support for sustainable practices and organizations, and policy change.

“Here at MSU, we have a clear role to play: we can model innovation in the absence of a strong policy mandate from the state,” Julia Haggarty, MSU Earth science professor, responded.

“The time for action and policy is now,” Whitlock wrote.