 So I'm sure I'm hoping that you're all bursting with questions you should be because that was an incredibly deep and confronting set of Fats scientific gatherings So I've got a few things I want to ask myself, but I'm going to open the floor straight up to you guys First, I'll only ask mine if you Too quiet, but there's a couple of rules The first one is that this is for questions So it's not a time for you to be putting a commentary or putting an alternative view or Whatever else you might want to do. So please just ask your question of Mark It's really a rare opportunity to get someone like Mark available to answer the question So let's do that. If you do start drifting into commentary I just warned you now and I'm not going to be rude about it But I will cut you off and we'll get you to pass the microphone on to somebody else That's the first rule. The second rule is No doubt we have a whole range of different views in the room on climate change Or on the climate science and I do ask that we just all respect one another's view as the questions are asked Allow the question to be asked and allow the answer to be given So that's the second rule. And the third one's not really a rule It's just a comment really for myself, which is that I'm really just facilitating If there are questions that are more directed to me So most of the questions I guess I'm saying is please direct them to Mark. If there are some that are more in my space I'll reserve the right to comment on what you view. But really this is mostly about questions for Mark So having laid the ground rules down, can I see show how we've got some mics? This one over on the left on the stairs. I'm going to grab that first and then we'll go right up the back and then in the middle And if you could just quickly say if you wouldn't, I'm sorry I said it out of mind you Just quickly say who you are and then cut to the chase with the question. Thank you I thank you very much for today's speech. My name's Emily. I'm from A2 and sorry for the beginning One of the questions I have actually speaks to your last point, which was I'm curious, is there a appetite to change some of the language to any urgency Basically by changing some of that one to five to two degrees, which most people is now If you want to reach your goals, you can take the increasing impact And then there's also space, and if you see space for things like second economy and project for down the stairs It sounds a lot like the concept to work in space Thanks for that question. It's a really good one. So one of the elements here is that this is actually the intergovernmental panel So it's actually not owned by the scientists. It's actually owned by governments And so to some extent there's a certain limit in terms of the appetite for how we express things And so it tends to be expressed in fairly straight down the line ways But I personally would encourage and I'm pretty sure the IPCC would encourage others to take up the information in the IPCC And put it in other language, in other formats that make it accessible So we can already see that happening on the web, even since the report's been released And where people are taking that information and massaging it so that it's more accessible to the people that they're interested in So I think they're good messages, but there are constraints in terms of the nature of the process And you might think that, oh well that's a real nuisance having the government sort of own this process And in a sense being very consistent and concerned with their needs And you might think that's a problem, but in fact I think it's a huge strength for the IPCC Because when this gets approved, it gets approved by all of the governments, there's unanimous voting And so all of those governments to a greater or lesser extent own the IPCC reports And with that ownership comes some degree of commitment to taking notice of them If this was done externally and we used whatever language we wanted to and presented in whatever language we wanted to There is no ownership and there is no in a sense responsibility to take notice of what they say So in all of these things there's some pros and cons And at the moment I actually think the IPCC is probably pretty much as good a model As we can actually find to taking the science and putting it into the hands of governments So that they can actually make sense of it in their own way So it's right at the back and then we might actually just do a couple in a row Collect them and then move on, so up the back and then in the middle Thank you, my name is Terry Hull from ANU I've seen over the past half century rapid decline in human fertility And that has brought some human populations down below replacement levels Some governments are now saying they want to increase fertility To bring up the populations in China, Russia, Germany, many countries How did the IPCC deal with human population growth in these models? Thanks, Terry, for that Do you want to let me get the other question if that's alright? So in the middle, thanks My name is Sunik, I'm an honorary professor here A bit closer to you now, Sunik Sorry, my name is Sunik, I'm an honorary professor of research and biology In order to get here tonight I had to look up a very interesting interview On this report that was happening on the drum And it seemed that if I understood the comment correctly One of the findings of the report has been that the cost of actually reducing CO2 emissions Has actually declined dramatically compared to previous reports Now I don't know if you could elaborate on that, please Two very different questions So while you're collecting your thoughts about them All questions so I can get the mics to So the gentleman in the middle That's got that and then one at the front right So after this, thanks Do you want to go ahead and answer those questions? Oh sorry So Jerry, the simple answer is yes they are And they're starting to be explicitly recognised For quite some time within the science community Population has been a no-go zone Largely because it's been a no-go zone within the policy communities And so that's starting to change and it's been dealt with explicitly Clearly if you have, and I'm saying if you have A set amount of emissions on average per person If you increase your population you're going to be increasing their emissions It makes your emission reduction task harder But at the same time there's lots of national circumstances Particularly if you have age bulges moving through populations Like we do in Australia, baby burners That then for other reasons may be a rationale For increasing fertility rates or increasing immigration rates And these are all part of the juggle That has to be made in terms of national policy settings In terms of the cost, yes Each progressive IPCC report has seen massive changes In cost structures for renewables in particular And of course that changes the ability To bring those into the energy mix substantially In fact Frank Yotso from ANU just a couple of weeks ago Had some media which said the cost of energy production Levelized cost for renewables was actually now lower In many cases than the marginal cost of operating coal-fired power plants So it's not the whole of the investment cost Just the operating cost, you know, putting the coal in etc And at that point it makes operating those coal plants pretty marginal And so even without government policy intervention If that continues we're likely just to see really big change over Simply because of that difference in costs So it's a really big one and it will continue to change Okay, so we have the gentleman in the check shirt, yeah Yeah, Tony Reade from Fennestore I know there's a half question about carbon budgets There's a remark I'll start to read Says there is a clear scientific basis for a total carbon budget Consistent with limiting global warming to one and a half degrees However, neither this total carbon budget Nor the fraction of this budget taken up by past commissions Was assessed in this report Would you comment on that, Bruce? Why not? So my collecting didn't really work before So why don't you go ahead and answer any more? So the approach is essentially the same approach To the carbon budget as in the AR-5 And within the sixth assessment report That will be revised significantly Jenny Goldby from Climate Action Network Coal is getting out of coal The estimated problem that we've got in Australia at the moment Was also used from the federal government as we all know But I'm concerned about oil The peak of oil was delayed by But for those of us who were involved in that movement The message was that some people And shortages of oil would cause economic collapse Now if we're going to keep that percentage of oil in the ground As you've got up there How are we going to avoid economic collapse? I guess in the past times We didn't have too many alternatives So if you look at the past oil crisis Back in the 70s We didn't have too many alternatives to oil And now we do for transport for example We have got electric cars There's a price point difference between Buying a petrol car and an electric car But we have the technology And even range anxiety is starting to be dealt with We've got electric cars that do 600 k And so I think we do have alternatives And similarly for oil for diesel To power generators to produce electricity We now have good batteries systems And we have wind and solar Which can produce that clean So in a sense we've given ourselves options That don't tie us into that particular system And so I don't think we'd need to look at the collapse Because we simply can just take on different options You have the... 10-10 is my name You had to rise at sea level of 10-7 It is for a 1.5 degree At 1.5 degree will the Greenland ice cap melt Completely What temperature will it melt at And presumably doing cumulative effects For a long long time Can you comment on that? So at the moment my understanding is that We're not looking at a complete breakdown of Greenland At 1.5 or 2 But we are looking at that once we get to higher temperatures And of course Greenland is important Because there's about 7 metres of sea level rise Stored up just on Greenland So the challenge here I guess Is that as our science improves Our understanding of the breakdown rates Of things like the ice sheets Actually has improved significantly And so we're seeing And at the same time The changes in the real world As in what's happening to Greenland Are also accelerating So our understanding is accelerating As is the real world changes And so what we thought would happen Perhaps 10 or 15 years ago Is very very different from what we're seeing happen now What we might think would have happened In terms of this just a few decades sort of thing So I'd be really quite low To be definitive about that Because our understanding is evolving so quickly As is the end of the breakdown And processes driving those breakdown rates Of both Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets More broadly if we There was a really interesting study Just a few weeks ago Which looked at Halio climate analogs For the current circumstances And looked at this sort of argument About tipping points which I guess I sort of think of as positive feedbacks So warming does something That generates greenhouse gases That produces more warming So it just winds up the system And that particular paper said There's probably not a strong case For saying tipping points are going to happen Between up to 1.5 or 2 degrees But once we go 2 degrees to 3 degrees Then they're going to start to cut in And so as long as we stay in that 1.5 to 2 We're probably not going to see The worst sort of scenarios That may otherwise occur Okay, so there's a question over here Then there's one down the front And then there's this lady down the front here Yeah, so please Hello, I'm Chicago Realizing from Science Sciences So if I understand correctly That business as usual scenario Is 4 degrees increased And I understood also that The 2 degrees increased Is unlikely to occur And the drastic changes that are Required to implement in the scenario What is the most likely scenario Given that the policies You've been probably implementing Too little and too late What do you think the Kindest likely will be? Yeah, well thanks gender The most likely scenario Is the one we're going to adopt Scenarios are explorations of the future You can't treat them in a probabilistic way You don't get a central tendency Around scenarios They're whatever you choose to explore So you actually learn something About the system And so I don't think we can talk about What's the most likely scenario Except if you sort of try To think about what the sort of Global governance is trying to do And that's like the Paris Agreement And the negotiations later this year And ramping up the ratchet mechanism The Paris Agreement I guess my best estimate of that And this is not a scientific assessment It's not probabilistic But I would say that we're Not going to get anywhere close To the emission trajectories Globally That are going to keep us to 2 degrees I think we're highly likely To go above that But I can always be surprised And I would be very pleasantly surprised If all of a sudden we actually Push those trajectories down If we don't have these sorts of assessments I think the likelihood Of pushing down on those trajectories Is much less I think we need to have These sorts of discussions And this sort of information available To people So they can actually start to assess For themselves the consequences And then sort of essentially Vote with their feet Now if you actually look at that The Australian populace has already Basically signed on to climate change So between 66 and 75% Depending on survey of Australians Say they want more action on climate change And they're not getting it at the moment Except in a few jurisdictions like ours And so there's a big gap Between what the site says And what the policy is doing At the moment And I'm not being critical Joe But it's just a That's the conclusion from this report And there's also a big gap Between what the Australian public says they want And what they're actually getting In terms of policy And my guess as to how that's going to close Is probably only as good as anyone else's guess But I think it does need to close Hello My name's Tony Slash I'm a water policy consultant Your message about SDG 6 The clean water SDG And the conflict between The achievement of that by 2030 Is what we're all committed to do And the water interception That will arise from addressing Climate change is a big A wicked problem for us all Didn't the panel look at other Potential ways of sequestering Carbon in the soil Other than the major Scout refund station Which was absorbed past amounts Of pressures for us Thanks for that Tony The IPCC can only synthesise The literature is out there So if there was a literature that covered that Then they can't synthesise that Again the main part Of that type of synthesis Is going to happen elsewhere So that will happen in the land report Which is going to be released Hopefully this time next year Or hopefully approved this time next year And that goes in a much greater detail In terms of that And to some extent you need to be Going down to regional specificities In terms of soil carbon Because what happens in Finland Is very different from what happens in Ethiopia So I think there's another Who's got the microphones at the moment So this next, thank you Hi my name's Jackie Mosul I'm interested in hearing what you might say About what our Prime Minister has commented In relation to the report And he said that the report Doesn't contain recommendations Or actions that Australia might take What would you say about that? I'd agree with half of them So the report doesn't contain recommendations The report as I said at the start Is it's not there to be Policy prescriptive We're not saying we recommend That governments do this Or we think governments should do this That's up to governments To actually make their decisions on In terms of actions Does it have actions that Make sense to undertake? Well I think it does I mean it covers a huge number Of possible actions in different pathways And what the trade-offs and synergies Are associated with those So I half agree with the Prime Minister So there's another question down the front And then I've been conscious That my gaze has been caught by the front So we'll go up the back next And then we'll come back Don't worry, I know there's a couple of people Who've got more questions Which is great to see But if you want to go ahead now And then we'll do a bit of a loop At the back and then come back to the front Hi Mark And my name is Etna And I work on a poverty measurement tool Called the individual declaration measure Which is founded in Participatory research Religious experience People living in poverty And I was hoping you'd actually go back To the slide with the SCGs on it And I was just hoping to hear Potentially a little bit about the methodology For how you derive some of those indicators I'm specifically interested in generally So the way this was done again There was a compilation of the literature And thanks for the question too There's a compilation of the literature And effectively there was an assessment Sent a rating scale Which the authors of this chapter Used to assess those synergies And so then they aggregated those up In terms of both the strength of the synergy But also the degree of connectivity So that's the little bit I didn't have time To talk about at the top Which is So there's two sort of measures here In each of these boxes One is that the length of each of these boxes Shows the degree of connection So some things are well connected with other With STUs and climate action And other things more weekly so And so the length of that box Indicates the strength of that connection And the colour coding here Indicates the strength of the synergies Or the trade-offs And so whether that's a strong synergy Or a strong trade-off for the weak one So that's So it was a semi-quantitative assessment Because they're dealing with Incredibly disparate literature And so that's how they The best that they could come up with To actually compile it to Show these sorts of linkages Do you want to follow? I just wanted to ask Are you surprised yourself By any of these in particular? I think in a sense If there was a degree of surprise You'd have to go back to the individual study And see what exactly they were talking about What the context was In which they were looking at that trade-off So, you know, obviously There's a strong degree of context In terms of their stages And so you'd have to go back And delve into the literature And this is recorded So there's a section in Appendix Which is huge Which actually lists All of these trade-offs The ratings and the references That were used for each of these cells So it's all there If you really want to delve There's a question On my phone in the middle And then to the left And then I'm going to come back And do it again Sorry, I wasn't meant to So, in a minute, please I'm just going to start a new I'm just writing You won't be given You're not facing You're not going further You're not facing And I'm wondering That if we are Is there a capacity Of the open system To include social science Or psychology Or political science Perspective to look at Successful strategies And potential strategies To address some of these issues And if that's not the case Is there an option To partner with a sister organisation With social science focus That was too important So don't go for that And come I'd actually go about Bringing that change And open the world So, again Thanks for that question So the IPCC probably Originally started out Very much as biophysical science But ever since The third assessment report Has been inclusive Of social scientists And last time around In the fifth assessment report We had ethicists And psychologists And communication experts As part of the team And the selection process Of the IPCC There's about Nine different dimensions Of selection For including any author In the IPCC And so And that's driven In part by Sort of experience And disciplinary base And where there's a need For psychology Or social science Or ethics That's brought in And so So they're quite diverse Writing teams Within these chapters You can always argue Whether they're sufficiently diverse And I've had these arguments Myself in the Selection process But But there are people like that In it Yes, that's the microphone First of all Yes, I've got Canada At CSR Mark, thanks so much For having me To write the IPCC And pushing yourself To use this Monthly talk So timely Very much appreciated I want to throw a challenge At you On this issue Of policy neutrality Of IPCC statements So every single model That has been used In this report That has been able to say That we can reach A steel mine from five Degrees Half A global carbon market And with carbon price All across The economies So Do you think that As a research finding Not a policy description statement Such an important finding Would not be A deep highlight of the report And for this matter Of the Summary for policy makers Yeah So Apologies, Pep For not including it But there is coverage Of that But it's within the text Of the chapters And also within The policy makers One of my criticisms Of the report Was it didn't deal With sort of costs And benefits adequately In monetary terms And looking at some of those Issues But that was really Just because of the Literature And the availability Of literature on that To do it So it's getting a little warm So I think a few Feel free to fan Even a few In a minute A bit of noise But then Yeah Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone Microphone in a particular way. Thanks again. Yes, it does deal with feedbacks and to the extent that the literature was available for those at the time. So the literature cut off now goes back a fair way for this report now. And since then there have been additional studies and the one I mentioned before which was a really, I think, a very thorough paleo study which looked at in a previous analogs for tipping points where they came up with the analysis that it's probably unlikely within 1.5 to 2 degrees that we're going to get significant tipping points. In terms of the carbon budgets that's included and so that sort of those feedbacks both positive and negative so they can cut both ways are roughly worth 100 gigatons of carbon dioxide. So if you're thinking about our carbon budget being let's just say 20 gigatons the tipping point component to add to that which adds on uncertainty on the side is roughly 100 gigatons. So the tipping points are much less in size than the human influence there. It's not saying they're not important but they're less in size. Jack, basically, you came to store my question on tipping points. So in fact I'm just going to ask which is a fairly unfair question because it's only three hours old that the Guardian Environment Report has got a story out saying the IPCC report underestimates the potential of tipping points to send the earth into a spiral of runway climate change and they're quoting Bob Ward's Policy and Communications Director of the Grandsville Institutes and Mary Molina and I built a binner in 1995 for his work on the ozone layer comment like IPCC underestimating, underestimating IPCC that's subtly enforcing feedback loops to push our climate system into chaos if we don't have time to tame our ecosystem etc. My question is, do you think that's fair comment? I haven't read that I've just been really busy over the last few days. So the my gut feel without having assessed that particular article and the reference is behind that. That's an overstatement. I think tipping points are very clear in hindsight they're very very difficult to predict and there's lots and lots of uncertainties about the typical ones that we talk about so we know what to do with methane and gel and frost and things like that. I would actually go back because I don't think we have the process based knowledge to actually do that like a global scale to actually do tipping points thoroughly nor do I think we have the knowledge to understand how the systems themselves human and other systems will respond to that because generally speaking systems respond in ways that cancel out perturbations. That's Le Chatelier's principle in chemistry that you might have learnt in high school. And it's true in so many different systems so if you're in dealing with the economic system often times if you actually get in price then the system will operate to pull that back into the fold or everyone else will move it's the same in physical systems biological systems tipping points tend to cancel each other out so there's a very dampened system in many cases so I would go back to that study I mentioned before which came out a few weeks ago which looked at the paleo analogs for tipping points and found that there was not good evidence to say that those tipping points would be substantial within that sort of 1.52 degree sort of frame but they could become more substantial if we go higher than that. So I've got two more question people with microphones down the front and then I think we've got time for two more after that so can I see the most enthusiastic one down the front and one in the middle okay. Thanks very much so sorry it's Catherine and then the gentleman on the end and then those two if I can find him again. Thank you. Mark you've finished quite strongly and it was a brief presentation and an excellent presentation thank you on just mentioning sustainable cities or implications for our cities do you see the IPCC doing further work in this field so you know the really important impact of our urban future and our growing cities together with a warming climate whether that's 1.5 2 3 4 degrees because some of those scenarios are pretty fighting. Yeah Thanks Barbara. So absolutely so in this 6th the 6th assessment cycle we've got cities much more prominent than they have been before so they sit within the chapter structures and within the scoping studies of the special reports where appropriate and in addition to that IPCC as you know has already just run a climate change and cities conference the one in Canada and in the next cycle there's an expectation that there will be a special report on cities and urban systems and it would have got in this round except that there are three other special reports queued up in front of it and if we'd done an extra special report it would have broken the system it wouldn't have been able to cope with running the systems already seriously stretched as it is and so you have to wait for that special report for the next cycle so another sort of 7 years but hopefully there's more research you can do for now and to contribute. That's exactly what I was going to say this is not opportunity Barbara it would really really do that as publications. I'll be there. Alright so the general miss Ren waiting very patiently over here. Thank you very much. I have a question about Oh I've no opens. Keep the point very short and get to the questions. According to the Beverly Institute in other words we are already on the continent one of the important things about the industry and according to James Hansen there is another topic in the world due to the musky effect of aerosols sorry is that the case and particularly do you think that the global warming can be set in a particular way giving it an undefined feedback which we're using we have maintained but without the Arctic we have ice melting there are fires and other warming oceans can we talk about any particular number at all without taking the undefined feedback into account? Thanks Andrew. Is that the very fact that we have 2.0 and 1.5 demonstrates that this is not about precision of science this was those targets are essentially a function of the political process I mean why wasn't it 2.1736 okay so it's not about precision this is about heading in approximately the right direction because that's all we can do at the moment and so I don't think we want to get caught up in arguments about precision at the cost of the big picture because I think it's the big picture which is the important one Thank you for reducing 20 centimetres to 20 centimetres in such fantastic ways they are really easy to understand I was wondering about the scenarios a really little role there to show what they learned including the geopolitical perspective the geopolitics the influence of power the views of globalisation whether we're going to collaborate or lockdown they're changing very rapidly and then you start to work scenarios you're all talking about there could be massive unrest global unrest people with more politics with seeing who ought to move around so that's the pessimist side wondering whether that's taken into account because I think that's going to be changing exponentially on the optimistic side could you give a comment about technology so technology is changing exponentially I've seen a report with you many years ago where we were looking at energy change and climate change being based on energy efficiency and if you look at things those sort of technologies are really changing rapidly so I'm just wondering how that was taken into account and if that's a positive note so very good, thank you Sarah so I guess the first point that you made is essentially about just transitions so it's not about just going for this at any cost because that's not the issue it's about how do you assess the cost and benefits of action on climate change versus the alternative and if there are going to be potential for rights and things like wholesale and change energy systems if we don't do it well there could equally well be wholesale rights if people are starting because of climate change and so it's about juggling those different factors and there's unknowns in relation to both of them and so we do have to think very carefully about these transitions it's not a done deal and that's why it's really important for organisations like IPCC not to say this is the way to do things but just to say here are the options that you may want to think about when you're starting to take action if you decide to take action and that's where IPCC has a role and that's different from the policy role and the political role and I think we need to stay with that as soon as we transgress our value it actually decreases to governments so that's one of the first things in terms of tech of course the tech is really important having cheap solar panels having electric cars and all the rest of it but by itself it's actually not the issue my old mantra is it's not about the technology it's about how you use it and so the big issues about self-drive cars for example are not about the technology it's about all of the social issues and the insurance issues and the registration issues and all that type of stuff so the tech is only one small part of the picture but it's often an enabling element which if you don't have it you can't do other things but you don't want to overly focus on it so it's that balance between those things which is important and our last question my name is Joe Quase thanks Mark my name is if you could make a couple of extra comments about negative emissions which in several of the pathways and the borders are going to be extremely important I read recently that the forest station is the only thing we've got do you and Flannery talking about kelp forests and things like that do you have a sort of a short list of the most prospective emission pathways that you might have at the time yeah there are around there wasn't particularly focused on in this report but in the special report for land there are significant analyses and in the oceans in Christfair I assume they're going to do some of the marine sort of ecosystem equivalence to the blue carbon as we call it and so so there's a whole range of different options which include you know afforestation reforestation improvements in soil carbon under agriculture which is easier to save than it is to do there's also carbon capture and storage which is not really negative emissions but at least it's a way of taking some of the gases out BEX can be negative emissions it's true sort of thing and then there's also a whole burgeoning field which is called carbon usage which is storing carbon in products and so again that's very new and still being developed and none of these in my view are going to be they're not single bullet options it's about a portfolio of these different options which hopefully will add up to something significant together rather than focusing on any individual one of them because the solutions for Singapore are going to be very different from the solutions for Australia Thank you all very much for such a great set of questions I just have two things to finish up on one is administrative but a very important contribution from you as well you will receive by email in the next day an evaluation form which gives you your chance to say what light about today and what the AAD Climate Change Institute do differently to make these kinds of sessions even more informative for you in the future so please fill that out when it arrives in your inbox the second thing is really to say thank you to Mark what an amazing presentation as Sarah said convincing an extraordinarily large amount of information into a really comprehensible and clear presentation and being willing to answer so many questions so patiently as well it's really fantastic so please join me for a big round of applause a sort of a very quick wrap up is that when you actually do these evaluations we synthesize those and we make them available on the web so they're actually available for you to see so they don't just disappear and so we have a now a list of these so please do it that helps us become better at these events but it also adds a traceability element to the effectiveness of these events and the last thing I just want to say is just come back to these is sort of a quote from Beck just to reiterate each half a degree matters each year matters and each choice matters I think that's a great way to finish Thanks, thank you