The Intergovernmental Group on Climate Change, also known by the English acronym Ipcc, was born in 1988 on the initiative of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program.
“The IPCC structure has always been as rickety as its name”, writes Elizabeth Kolbert in the New Yorker, because “every report published by the group had to be approved not only by researchers, but also by the governments of the member countries, which today are one hundred and ninety-five . The process seemed designed to produce a stalemate and, according to many, this was its purpose ”.
The fact is that since then, following the same complicated procedure, the IPCC has periodically updated its reports. Until the most recent, the sixth, presented on 9 August. Even in its most concise version, the so-called Summary for political leaders, is completely impenetrable, “with its mix of technicalities and pompousness. Despite this ”, Kolbert continues,“ it manages to be terrifying ”.
Today the gravity of the climate crisis is there for all to see and you don’t need to be a scientist to realize it. Yet in 2020, the 25 largest US oil and gas companies posted a series of ads on Facebook, viewed by 431 million people, to minimize the climate emergency by providing incomplete or scientifically incorrect information. The goal is clear: to slow down interventions to counter the climate crisis and preserve the current economic and production model for as long as possible.
In spite of resistance and obstacles, however, we must strive to be optimistic. Rebecca Solnit explains it well in the article we publish this week: “The most striking thing in the IPCC report is not the bad news, which is actually nothing new. It is clarity on possible solutions that are a sign of hope ”.
.