 Ie, dwi ddod am y ddoedd yr Aelodau Archwm yng Nghymru oedd y ddod yn y Rhyfbeth Cymru. Mae'r ddod o ddod o'r ddod y Ddod gyda Nicola Styrn, chi'n mwynhwyl yng nghymru yw'r ddod y 2006 ddim yn gwybod yng Nghymru o'r ddod yng nghymru. rhaid ogdennu y cynllun â'r eu cyfnodau ar y gwasanaeth gweithio ar y gwasanaeth a'r gwasanaeth yn y cyfrinod y byddai'r blaenau am bethau y gall cyfrinodau, ac mae yw'r Lleiciol a Gweithbludd, ac mae'r Cymru a Gwyrd ganbylch o'r defnyddio neu eu cyfnoddau ar gyfan lleiwyr, mae'r cyfrinoedd yn clonwys i gyfrinodd y mynd i chi, ac mae rhai fydd yn gweithio'r cymhwyl am y dyfodol ynglyn â'r gyfer y gwiriaeth a'u mynd i ar gyfer y gwasanaeth there with their communication. Now the first thing to note is and I'll emphasise this all the way through is that climate change is an issue or both risks and opportunities and that's the most important thing to take away from this is that when you talk about climate change both for this and both the opportunities have to be part of that. The picture on Fi feth yw eich gwneud y gwirionedd yn y Manchun Caerdydd â'r treidio yn yma yng ngylldoedd, wrth gwrs, er mwyn yng Nghymru'n rhoi hyn yn y cwmhaeit yn gweithio mewn gwestiwnol. Felly, y cwmhaeit yn y gwasanaethau i sylfaen yw amgylch, y lle sy'n mynd ymddangos i amlaenau ac yn y gweithreithau ar y Gwmhaeit, yn y Kyllid, rwy'n gwirionedd yn y complex, a wnaeth i'r rhai pan-lawn, a byddai'r awfodol yn gweithio â mafot, bod y dyfodol yn gweithiaid hi, dyn nhw gymryd gan yw amber yn fwy o'r wych chi. Rydych chi'n meddwl, sy'n cael ei ffurf ar wychach i'n gweithio diolch. Fydrech lodg yw o'r hunain erbyn i'ch cyflawn. Mae'r ffrifi gydig fyddwn yn ennill wedi'u nee fe maes oedd fel panodol. yn ei ddefnyddio'r ddefnyddio'r diogel sydd wedi eu pryd mewn wath canig er mwynnig yr intechnau yma o'r cydweithio cyfletiaeth yn 400 miliwns mwyaf i ddweud bethau'n cael ei ddefnyddio'r tyfn gyda Llywodraeth yn y byddialid mwyaf a'r cyfletiau yn dddefnyddio'i gynhyrchu ei an drugs â nhw, mae'n ddefnyddio wasbwyll y ddechrau. Mi'n dda chyfeisio ddoeth ymlaen o gynnig ym mwy oedd yn ddechrau Probably this is kind of obvious, but I mean what we need to do in order to manage the risks of climate change successfully and to seize those opportunities that are available is to achieve a reduction in a rich country, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of between 60-90% compared to carbon and the right amount of carbon. a chael 16% o bod y rhaid i'n golygu wrth yn gweithio a'r ysgolio arall ar y mhau 25 yma. Felly mae'n gael ei wneud yn ychydigol. Mae hyn yn fydd yw i'r ysgolio ar gyfer gweithio a'r gwyllloedd, mae'n gweithio i'r ffordd y Gweithredaeth a'r gweithio i'r gaelig yn gweithio i'r gweithio i'r gweithredaeth a'r gweithredaeth. Ond mae'r gweithredaeth, yma, er mwyn i'n gweithredaeth a'r gweithredaeth, on-board understanding the rationale behind these policies and to support them. However, and certainly in the UK, what we've suffered, although there is relatively high levels of support for dealing with climate change, it can be varying levels of support for individual measures, partly because of the confusion around the way in which they are communicated, misunderstanding and confusion about the scale and urgency of the problem. And it's a scale and urgency of the problem that is where you have to start rather than think about climate change, because it's that that tells you how much you've got to do and by when. And greenhouse gas levels are already higher than they've been probably for at least 800,000 years, probably for millions of years. That in itself should be a reason to be concerned. But what we're aiming for is we just look at models that we carry on with current rates of emissions in the century. We're talking about changes in temperature that could be as much as 5 degrees or more by the end of the century. Now, that doesn't sound very much compared to average daily changes in temperature, but 5 degrees is the difference between today's average temperature on Earth and the average temperature during the last icy. We haven't seen 5 degrees warmer than today for tens of millions of years. Not just that we don't just not have any historical understanding about, this lies outside of the evolutionary experience for human beings, which has only been around for 250,000 years. So anybody who says confidently we could deal with that is really speculating beyond any reasonable limit. Now, one of the things that is most important to get across to people is that the impacts take time to feed through. And many of these impacts, some of the most severe impacts such as the destabilisation of the polar ice caps could be irreversible. Indeed, there's already signs in the Antarctic, in West Antarctica, that you've started to see the erosion of the ice shelf, which essentially holds the glaciers even to Antarctica. And they've gone and the glaciers are pouring into the ocean there. Essentially, what looks like an irreversible destabilisation of West Antarctica, which, taken to its full limit, would add 6 to 7 metres onto global sea level. So we have to worry about those things. That's why we have to act now before we see how far these impacts go. Because once they are fully in motion, chances are that we're not going to be able to reverse them, and they're going to have strong non-linear effects, such as the methane that could be released by melting and permafrost, which would create a kind of feedback loop, and methane, as you know, is a very strong, powerful greenhouse gas. So although what might happen in the future is uncertain, these are risks, and the only way we will be able to prevent dealing with those impacts is if we take preventative action now. Otherwise, they'll become unavoidable. This is a graph from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's last report. This shows the scale of the risks that we're facing. On the left-hand side are projections of temperature and the various emissions scenario. Top one is what happens if you just carry on with accelerating greenhouse gas emissions. You'll be potentially up to five degrees more than pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. But even at the lower levels, kind of weak mitigation scenarios, you've still got very significant changes. Two or three degrees, again, well outside human experience. And on the right-hand side, you have something, the reason for concern diagram. It looks at five major impacts of climate change, or five capsules of impact. And what that's showing here is, essentially, if we get above about two degrees more than pre-industrial, we're dealing with a whole range of potentially unacceptable risks, not the least of which are the large-scale sooner ends such as the destabilisation of the ice sheets. So, it's important to explain to people that because of the lag in the system, in the climate system, we're going to end up, even if we stopped emitting emissions overnight, we're still going to be dealing with the consequences of climate change for at least two or three decades. And that requires us to adapt to become more climate resilient. But in the long term, we won't just be able to adapt. If we talk about a sea level rise of six or seven litres, albeit maybe over a century, over a millennia, but even two or three metres over the next century would be very significant. Currently, about 200 million people worldwide live within a couple of metres of sea level along the world's coast. Imagine trying to move them all within the next century. It would be a huge undertaking called massive disruption. So, Governments have already agreed that a rise of global average temperature more than two degrees would create unacceptable levels of risk. They give us another 50% chance of avoiding a rise of more than two degrees, means going from annual emissions at the moment of more than 50 billion times the less than 20 billion times by 2050. And that's the scale of the challenging phase. It's a huge undertaking that it is achievable. Now, one of the real issues here is getting across to people, policymakers and the public, the scale of those risks. And it isn't always particularly conveyed. So, this is an example again from the summary from policymakers of the IPCC, the experts on climate change, produced. And that top sentence, equilibrium of climate sensitivity, that's the temperature change, the long-term temperature change that would occur in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, is likely to lie in a range of one and a half to four and a half degrees. It's very unlikely greater than six degrees. Well, very unlikely means up to a one in ten chance. A one in ten chance that the doubling of CO2 would create a rise of more than six degrees in temperature. Now, that is, in that language, that think, oh, well, it's very unlikely, it's very unlikely, therefore why bother? But if you compare that to the kind of risks that government deal with, you know, in the UK there's a national risk register which categorizes different risks down to one in 20,000 chance. And here's a one in ten chance casually dismissed. And it isn't even built into the model. So what we see even in the IPCC report is arguably a conservative estimate of the risk. And that is not a very helpful way of helping policymakers and the public understand what's at stake here. So it's not always conveyed clearly the scale of the risks. Of course, the evidence that climate change is happening is clear and unambiguous. And I'm glad to hear that in Ireland there's less dispute goes on about the science behind it. We've seen a rise in global average temperature of about 0.85 degrees, 13 of the 14 warmest years on record of all occurred since 2000. Here's an argument that is often made in the UK, and that's the idea that global warming stopped in 1998. So what I've done is I've plotted temperature since 1970, global average temperature since 1970 on the left hand side. You can see a fairly good upward trend. But what happens is people go and look at the last years since 1998, the last 17, 16, 17 years, and they draw this much shallower graph. Then what they say is, well, we've only got 16 data points. It's not statistically significant, therefore global warming zero, therefore it's stopped. It's a kind of duff kind of logic that unfortunately gets great play in our media, and the scientists have trouble arguing it down. But there's no real evidence that it might have temporarily slowed down, but we've seen that throughout history those have happened. Of course, the temperature record for Ireland reflects the global average temperature. On the top is temperature from five stations in Ireland from your Met Office here since 1900. On the bottom I've used the stretched out global average temperature from the UK Met Office. You can see the same pattern of a rise between 1900 and 1940, then a levelling off for slight depression, and then a pick up again in the 1970s. Ireland has all the evidence that climate change is happening. From the economics point of view, climate change is the result of a series of market failures, the most serious of which is that the price we pay for products and services that produce greenhouse gas emissions does not reflect the cost imposed on everybody through climate change impacts. That's a market failure that Nick Stearns described as the largest market failure the world has ever seen. But it's not the only one. There are several other market failures that hold back all kinds of fossil fuels. The fact that R&D isn't usually high on the list of companies because the spillover effects that competitors earn from them are enormous, so you need public funding for that. Capital markets generally are very short-sighted in their funding and access to networks, electricity networks, hinder new entrants. For that reason, you need a whole host of different policies which address all of those market failures. You can't just rely on one. You can't just rely on carbon pricing, which is the best response to the greenhouse gas externality of the economists call it. Who should communicate? It's not just climate scientists who should communicate. It's everybody, researchers and other fields, the economists, governments and their agencies, international bodies, businesses, businesses, arguably hold the answer here. If businesses, ffarsighted businesses spoke up more about how they are building climate change into their future, I think a lot of people will be persuaded. Those who make the argument that it would be economically too difficult to respond need to listen to what businesses say. The media community and religious leaders and I think the Pope's encyclical potentially is going to have a huge impact worldwide on understanding of climate change. Public everybody needs to be involved. So what role should the media play? In the UK, the media is divided. Broadcasters are required by law to be impartial in their reporting. Newspapers are essentially allowed to do whatever they want. They're self-regulated and if you've been following self-regulation of the UK media, you'll see it's a shambolic mess at the moment. But essentially what happens is that the print media in particular treats climate change, not as a scientific issue but as a political issue, and therefore they get to choose which side they want to be on or argue that they have to go for balance. In actual fact, the majority of the UK's national newspapers now are skeptic to some point of view, which is amazing considering how strong the scientific consensus is. Here's an example recently. This is from last September when the Mail on Sunday, which is one of our most widely read Sunday newspapers, published an article claiming that essentially Arctic sea ice has started re-growing again. Amazingly, much more ice last summer than there were two years previously. On the left is the graph showing the sea ice extent in summer and you'll see that it wriggles around a very distinct downward trend. I complained about this article and I've just heard from the media self-regulator that they found nothing wrong at all with the newspaper article. Not a single thing wrong with it. Unbelievable. What impact does that have on the public? That kind of reporting by the newspapers that kind of either treats a false balance or even decides they want a skeptical viewpoint. This is a survey result from last August for the UK public. It's asking what proportion of climate scientists do you think believe that climate change is mainly the result of human activities roughly 95% of climate scientists accept that position. You'll see that the public believe that only 53% of the public believe that almost all scientists accept that fact. There is a mismatch between what scientists actually think about climate change and what the public perceive scientific opinions is on this. When we talk about climate change, there are two major framings which are important here. I talked about opportunity and risk, but there's one important one which tends to trip up a lot of the scientists and that's uncertainty. And uncertainty has been used throughout modern history by those who wish to resist regulation or legislation against their products and services in order to delay. And the most obvious example, that was the tobacco industry which used doubts about the link between smoking and lung cancer for many, many years to resist it. This is an extract from a document that was distributed by a Republican lobbyist pollster in the US. It was back in 2002, so during Bush's time, but it articulated very clearly a tactic is still used today. And his advice to Republican activists in dealing with global warming was that voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. That is why those who oppose action on climate change because they don't like the idea of regulating business try to make this about the science because they know that if they can make it uncertain, create doubt in the minds of the public about the science, they don't have to then have an argument about regulation and legislation. And that is still a very, very powerful tactic that is used today. And the only way of really dealing with this properly is to make this about risk because it's easy to say if you're dealing with uncertain impacts to say, well, let's wait and see what happens. But if what you're saying is these are risks and the risks are growing every day as greenhouse gases goes up, then it's not a reasonable position to say, well, let's just let the risk accumulate before we do anything. We saw what happened in the banking crisis, what happens when you do that. The other one, of course, is the burden versus opportunities. Having accepted that the risks is the action, cutting of greenhouse gas emissions, a massive burden. That indeed is the way in which the UN framework convention on climate change tends to view this. But actually, increasingly, it is recognised how the action to cut greenhouse gas emissions will have lots of other economic co-benefits. This is what I think is the most powerful diagram from a report published last September, launched at the UN called the New Climate Economy Report. This shows the economic damage caused every year just by 2.5 micron particles from the burning of fossil fuels. Essentially, it shows that in China, they lose about 11% of GDP a year just through the action of those through local air pollution that reduces people's lives, make them unable to work. The kind of measures, like if you were to cut down the burning of coal and release, and this is indeed what China is understanding now, you will have huge multiple benefits beyond those of just the avoided climate risk. That's a powerful argument why there are huge opportunities associated with that. This is my last slide. This is bringing together those elements I've rattled through very quickly about successful communication. Communication has to be everybody involved in that. That means asking questions as well as giving answers. You need to be discussing what's happening here, understanding what the scale and the urgency of the risk, what our options for action are. It is really important that people understand the scale of the risk. You cannot get to where you need to be if you don't understand what's at stake here. We are really in a very difficult position. We do not get a strong climate agreement in Paris at the end of this year. It is hard to see how we will be able to avoid global warming of more than two degrees and we are into territory that humans don't know about and looks very risky indeed. You need multiple channels to communicate and the traditional media have their shortcomings. That's why increasingly new media are important to be able to convey directly to the public the information they need. You need to talk about uncertainties in terms of their risks because uncertainty is used by those who want to delay action to try and stop moving ahead. People need to understand the co-benefits and all the other opportunities that arise from action. Most important of all, the power of the example because what often you see at the moment is governments say they want to act but they want to see what other people are doing first. Those who move first set a good example. That's why the news in the last week that China last year reduced its coal consumption by 2.9% and that its reduction in energy emissions means that last year for the first time in recorded history carbon dioxide emissions from energy didn't go up between 2013 and 2014 without a worldwide global recession is it shows that we can get this done. It is possible, it's going to be a huge challenge but we're already seeing the signs that we can achieve this and that's really where we need to focus. Thank you.