 Welcome to today's event. Welcome to Stockholm environment Institute. My name is Francis X Johnson. I'm a senior research fellow here at SCI. As you might know, the SCI has a special relation to the Stockholm conference this week. The SCI takes its name from that conference as well as its mission and its mandate. And it's a very special week for us and the SCI is very much involved in the events. And the SCI also has a quite interesting history when it comes to the FCC. The predecessor of the FCC, the advisory group on greenhouse gases, our first director, was deeply involved. And our chair, one of our chairs, was also the chair of the IPCC, first chair in fact. So I'd like to start off by introducing Camilla Anderson. She's the Swedish focal point alternate for the IPCC. She's a senior researcher at the Swedish meteorological and hydrological institute. She has a sense in meteorology and her research has focused, excuse me, on air pollution and its effects on the ecosystem, health and climate. Camilla. I'm behind you. Thank you. Thank you so much, Francis. And I also wish to welcome you all to this event, which is very exciting, I think. So I welcome from the side of the national focal point in IPCC from Sweden. So we'll start by talking a little bit about IPCC and how the work is and how the scientific evidence involves throughout the years. So IPCC was formed in 1988, and currently there is 195 member states in the panel. It assesses the scientific knowledge and does no research of its own. And it's the scientific evidence of climate change and an impact on humans, socio-community and on the environment. So there is a steering board that we wrote in IPCC and member states nominate all the students to work in comparing these points in IPCC. And the members, they nominated that the group, for example, participated in writing the reports. The reports are then written in three working groups. The one focusing on the scientific evidence of climate change and the anthropogenic part of it is in our future, one working group on impact and adaptation effects, and one on mitigation. Each working group has around a few hundred people, people, experts and researchers writing the reports and they summarize the evidence from thousands of scientific papers. In this process, there is also a summary for policy makers that is written by the authors, and this is then discussed in detail in the session meeting in the Governmental Panel on Climate Change 1966. So what about the scientific evidence over the 30 plus years of the panel? Well, the amount of evidence has increased tremendously. In 1990, the first assessment report was published. And this underlined the importance of climate change and the impact and also the importance of cooperation between countries to come to terms with this. The first two working group reports were around a few hundred pages and had around a thousand scientific references, which was still at that point. And the third working group of the fewer references around a hundred. But today, there is a hundred more references in the third working group and some thirty-four more references in working group two. So you can see there is a tremendous increase in the scientific knowledge that is the basis of these reports. Besides the assessment reports, and now we're in the sixth assessment cycle, besides these reports, there is also special reports that the panel has summarized or written. And for instance, one focusing on one-and-a-half degrees and a few on reporting mission methodologies. Besides this, one thing that's worth mentioning I think as well is that IPCC also joined the Global Peace Prize in 2007 in the same year that the report assessment report was published. And this is then along with Al Gore. So we're now in the sixth assessment cycle. In the end of that, it will be completed in October this year and then we're starting on the seventh assessment cycle. Besides description of serious needness of the situation and the urgency for action, the report also describes possible solutions and mitigation versions. And this is the amount of evidence for that. So the synthesis report is to be published and accepted in October this year. And we look forward to that of course. Bada, thank you and give word over to Francis. Thanks a lot, Camilla. So I want to quote a philosopher, historian George Santana, who said that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. And I think the idea for our event today, which came several months ago, relates to this sort of policy space in which we happen to work here at SEI, in which you're thinking so much about what has happened very recently, but we have to take the time to reflect on what has happened over over decades. And that's why the case of the RCC is particularly interesting. In many ways it's the most prominent of all the scientific assessments and has this rather special relation to both policymakers but also society in general. So a few practical points today is those of you who are joining online, you can send your questions anytime on the chat, and that will come later. We will take a pause at 11. So let's go to the panel. I'd like to first introduce our moderator, Lisa Shipper, is a research fellow at the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford. She works on adaptation and vulnerability in the context of development. She was a coordinating lead author in the chapter on climate resilient development in working group two, and she's been the lead author on the special report on extreme events and lead author also in the AR5 working group two so Lisa. Thanks. Thank you. Welcome to the panel. I'm probably just out of the here. So, I'm really excited to. I haven't made my vision really bad so I'm in between age or I'm trying to look at what I've written and also look at you and be able to see. So I'm just really happy to be here. I spend a lot of time thinking about the IPCC spend a lot of time writing for the IPCC. As Francis said, I've also when I was doing my PhD, I worked for the Earth negotiations bulletin and during that time I'm supporting on IPCC panel events. So I was sitting in the back and we're listening to companies talk about what to do with reports and as far as I can remember the first one I was at somehow on the third assessment cycle so it would have been around 2000. 2001. So, then I think, personally, as a scientist working in the interface of climate development, it was sort of a goal to be an IPCC author so I'm very excited when I have the opportunity. And I do think though that it is we are the moment where we really need to reflect on what is actually what we've done in the past what has this what has the scientific process contributes to because now more than ever it's clear working your one, working your two, working your three, especially reports in the sixth assessment cycle, very clear that the time to act is absolutely minimal. So, if we think about that context and what exactly, what would IPCC process look like over the next few years. I personally, because I'm partly supported by Swedish government and also by the UK from from being based at Oxford. I've already been approached by the UK public point asking, can we have a discussion about the next round, what is the seventh assessment reports like going to look like you have any suggestions. And as I said, I'm very excited in order to have the opportunity but it's also like, well, maybe we need to step back and think a little bit about where we're going with this and is it really do we really want to start thinking about right sort of business and the usual IPCC when we know that by the time we finish that report actually will hit against the deadlines that were set in the front for five report and also have been reinforced by the subsequent working group reports now so I think we're sort of, you know, but simultaneously we have very clearly society and academics asking sort of where is the action. Recently there was a paper published in the journal that happened to be co-editor of climate development that caused a lot of sort of reflections in among climate scientists and it was suggesting that actually we should abandon maybe walk out scientists climate to abandon the process because the governments weren't taking action. So, you know, is that the way to do it. I think nuanced reflections recognize that we can't abandon the knowledge process because it's fundamental and vital, but at the same time we do need to think about what is actually being used for. I think, you know, this, I mentioned everything I want to say. So, yeah, so in order to think about what's ahead, then we also need to think about what we've already accomplished and that's why this event I think comes at a really, really good time. There are a lot of things that are kind of around the IPCC and if you ask in the IPCC also in the room, you will get thoughts about how much time has sacrificed, how much my family has suffered, how much sleep I've lost, how frustrating some of the process is. And I think that's sort of, yeah, that's the immediate reaction and you can see there are definitely papers published after each of the cycles where authors are reacting to how difficult their life was during this period. But there are some more concrete issues as well. And one of them is about how to make sure that we have a diversity of voices, not just represented in among the authors but actually able to actively participate and get their perspectives heard. And I think this is a very, this is a very challenging, because it's not like the way the IPCC is structured, but times are changing and the literature that we're looking at is changing as well. And as Camila pointed out, there's a huge amount of literature and it's, for instance, we've got tremendous amount of climate justice now. That was not something that we talked about in previous reports very much, but the literature is so incredibly massive that you can't ignore it any longer. So of course it plays a huge role, especially in working group two. Good. So that's sort of, I am sure that the panelists are going to bring lots of fascinating issues to the table today and I'm sort of, I've asked them to reflect a little bit on a few things. For those who have been involved with authors or in other ways, local points to reflect on their experience and what they think is sort of, yeah, how was this experience to think about the impacts that the reports have had. What do they see the impacts? Do they think, what they think is good about the IPCC? And what do they think maybe needs to change? And also sort of in terms of the society, the science-society relationship, what can we see from that is sort of society picking up the reports, or is it just something that ends up on the shelf in SFOA or something, you know, where we say, okay, here we've done this and the science is there, but does it actually go, do people sort of on the ground also find these reports useful? Of course they're really difficult to read. So yeah, so we're going to go through and then to give the panelists a chance to reflect on these thoughts, whatever they want, and then we're going to go back for a few more thoughts. So you get first three minutes and then you get another two minutes and then we'll have a little break at 11. And then there'll be a transfer audience to ask questions and also for those who are online can put questions in the chat. And then we'll have a final round for all of the panelists to say something and they will close. So we're going to do it. And I'm going to introduce panelists and I think I'm going to go introduce you all at once, maybe, just so that we can move from one person and then you can also know how the order that I'm going to ask you in. So I'm going to start with my handi, the former ITC focal point and who was my first kind of contact point as a Swedish author. So for me that's where my IPCC career started and she is now retired, but she is very kindly come back to help us to kind of think about these things. She was a senior research officer in the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency more than 20 years. So she's she and also was focal point from 1999 to 2013. One of her main interests is adaptation. So she's worked different, different sort of intergovernmental processes on adaptation and took, including SEIs, Arctic zillions report and other kinds of things like that. So that Marianne did it first. And then I'm going to ask who is who is who works and works for the last decade in various roles on adaptation zillions in the event. So, so that is works in the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, but she's also she's also the first Baltic author from Latvia who has been part of an IPCC report. She was lead author who came out in 2019 is review editor at Workner 2 in Chapter 17 on governance and is also lead author in the forthcoming synthesis report. So we have sort of has a wide experience in the AR6 and six assessment cycle. And then we're going to go in and out who is a global climate correspondent for Swedish television, and she has a lot of experiences from her foreign correspondent in Africa, you and us. And she also has a really interesting book called Kimo, which is about how climate change is transforming Sweden. Is this in Swedish only maybe at this point. I think it's only remaining Swedish. Yeah, well, then for those who don't see Swedish, it's time to learn Swedish. So, so, yeah, so and it is a feeling. Yeah, give us a perspective obviously. But it's been reporting on climate environment issues for a long time. And so to Marco, Marco is a climate advisor at Swedish meteorological Institute, and he's the current Swedish IPCC local point. And he's also professor in climateology at Lund University. So on top of that, he has also been involved in IPCC as an author as a reviewer. Marco was a lead author in the fifth assessment report. So he has also a lot of different kinds of experience and will be able to give us some insights into sort of also this role of sitting as a government representative as well as being a scientist. Okay, and then. Let's see. Oh, yeah, Toya Vespai. So Toya is here. She is. She's a passionate nature lover, and she's also she became an activist in 2018. And she's, Toya is actually reached out to me when when the IPCC, the work group to record came out and asked me to present on the reports to something called researchers desk, which is actually a very really active and exciting kind of say portal or something for for it's a place for kind of science and society to come together. And I think that she's she's read carefully the reports. She's she's very keen on raising awareness about climate and environmental issues. Yes, but yeah, and she's she's really been actively sort of absorbing all of literature that's come up from the last 30 years. And then we're going to go to Georgia, so we do with Georgia is she's a research at Shamrock University in technology. And she's also research affiliate with the University of Cyprus. Georgia has a lot of interesting experience, in particular, she's worked with SCI and she's worked on the development of eight Atlas, which has an online platform for visualizing international development finance flows. And because of that she's also was a contributor in the Africa chapter to and particularly on adaptation finance African countries, which is a huge topic and it comes up over and over again in any kind of form where I've been presenting the report is where are the loss and why sort of what how can we get action going. So that's a really important topic. So with that, I'm now going to ask Mariam to start with her few comments and yeah, and I will try to keep time so three minutes of the little bit strict since we have a lot of people, people and I want to give you all chance to say something. Thank you for inviting me and I mean it's not so long. And I would first like to tell you about my first impression from the IPCC meeting it was in Costa Rica and dealing with a special report on aviation. I'm a journalist on the long endless discussions on language and wording. So for me, non English speaking person or non English native. It didn't really change the message for what was discussed. Yeah, but I also saw the necessity to give the summary for policy makers that companies to comment on those summaries, because I think that will make the more trustworthy and as an open process and the summary for policy makers are at least meant to be written for the policy makers in the national governments to the climate convention. But still, as I heard from the latest meetings you can argue if this has to be changed in some way to make the language more easy. There is, I think Sweden has translated all those messages from the very beginning I think so we try really to have this information on the table. So, I think the awareness of the climate change has constantly increased not only here in Sweden but globally, so that the IPCC makes a difference that for sure. And you can also see we were given the task to follow one topic and I thought the adaptation impacts adaptation is worth to look at the interaction how it came around that the COP meeting and the hate in 2000 mitigation were discussed in Flinon, but many people had picked up the impacts. Well, I don't think they talked about adaptation that but still the necessity to also focus on the impacts on how to deal with those impacts. So, only one year later, when Sweden had, I mean this is the European Union also, we had the EU presidency. And then we had actually Bochaleon, who should be well known here in Asia, he was the EU president for leading the chat. We had a European research group by IPCC focal points who wanted to coordinate the impacts research in Europe. And we proposed to the negotiations to take these impacts research as a subgroup for the working parties and the sub-star work. And actually it was approved as an agenda point and then it has improved over the years, but I think still it is on the agenda. So that is how I see the impacts came into negotiations. Well, there is very many different worlds coming up and also ways it has constantly increased the aspects of how to handle risks and vulnerability. And for the lay people, it's not always so easy to understand what those words really mean. You have societal transformation, for example, what is that, what does that really mean? It was huge discussions during my last meeting in the European Union, the American political meetings. And then this resilience word. I mean, you can understand it, but it's not easy to convey how you, in an easy way, how you should look at it. So I think wording is very important to use some word and language that is understandable for people who has to deal with the reports. So I think that is more meaningful. Thank you. Let's go to the moment. Yes, that's great. And in fact, I think that leads very nicely into the comments, hopefully, precisely about how to communicate better some of these really critical and difficult parts of climate to climate change. Thanks for my time or so over. So I wanted to share with you a little bit about how the IPCC has conducted risk assessments and how this has changed over time. And risk and understanding the risks from climate change is a key kind of theme and message from the IPCC reports. And the first risk assessment, it was, I think, the third assessment report where they developed something called, for the first time, burning embers. These are basically these figures that look like there's almost like they're kind of traffic lights or flames. They start with white and then go yellow, red and dark purple to indicate risk at different temperatures. And in the third assessment report that's around 2000, there were five burning embers for what they call reasons of concern. So things like tipping points or the global distribution of impacts. In the most recent report, I think you've had something like 30 or 40 burning embers on everything from risk of malaria to risk to food supply, etc. So there's been a huge proliferation of these embers. And it's a good example of how it shows how the process has changed. So over time, for example, the purple color, which means high risk was introduced in the fifth assessment report. And now you have these, as I mentioned, many specific risk assessments or risk kind of sectoral embers. And it's also, it shows, you know, the process itself has been improved over time. Initially it was, you had authors kind of just looking at the literature and saying, I think around 1.5 degrees, you might have a problem. But now that process is very formalized. There's kind of an expert assessment and elicitation process. It's really documented. So there's been improvements in this. There's also, I would say, huge gaps in ways we can continue to improve. So right now, we have this, you'll see some some evidence of how some of the conclusions are that risk, there's higher risk at lower temperatures. So the questions that come are, well, is this because the literature has improved, because the science has improved and understanding is bigger, or is it because people have just kind of changed the way they're doing this assessment. And so going forward, what we really need to do is compile all this information, have a good database that future authors could refer to where the methods are very clear that we could build on as we go to the seventh cycle, for example. Within the IPCC to do this. And I think these risk assessments are also an example of how the IPCC is really influenced policy, because those embers in the process of these kind of looking at these risks has helped influence that 1.5 and 2 degree goal. Because many of these embers show that actually we start switching to high or very high risks around 1.5 degrees or two degrees of global warming. And so there's kind of this direct link of how the IPCC has influenced the policy process by looking at these these embers. So that's my three minutes and I'll end there and hopefully add some more personal reflections later. Yes, thank you. Right, so we're, yes, we're going from thinking about language, thinking about one of these difficult things to communicate a way of communicating risk. And now we actually get to hear also with it from Edith, how, yeah, how does one communicate this? What do what's the public want to know about IPCC and also, yeah, other reflections that you have also supporting on this and interesting. Thank you so much. It's an honor to be here. I follow IPCC very closely, of course, that is my job as global climate correspondent, which is the position I was given almost three years ago was the first time that Swedish television. My mission or my job is to travel and try to find actually constructive solutions, but also a report on climate change. And I'm sort of trying to balance the message between the severity of the situation, but also this spring I've spent a lot of time traveling finding the viable climate solutions. I came back from Spain yesterday, visiting the world's largest green hydrogen plant that was actually migrated just a week ago. So I'm somewhere in there. I think bottom line what we're approaching because I think we're all in agreement that politicians lack an adequate response to the crisis that we are in. My job is not to be the activist. I'm a journalist. I have to scrutinize and report what I find is viable. But of course by Swedish television appointing a climate correspondent and also we have climate reporters, we have climate editors, we have a climate newsletter. As a public service company, we are communicating and have decided that this is one of the key issues. Again, when you have a crisis like the pandemic or now with a war in Europe, I have to struggle to get my stories on the air because we seem to be capable only of addressing a crisis at the time. So I think listening to you here at the bottom line question is, does science have an obligation to save humanity from this sort of slow collective suicide that we seem to have embarked on? Is it media's responsibility to do that? I have an answer but I think it's the question we're approaching because when you guys in your latest reports just sort of go with those traffic lights saying urgent, urgent, urgent. And my reporting is urgent, urgent, urgent and saying how many thousands of scientists that are behind this, one would think that the whole world would stop and also say, wow, okay, you know, this is the time for the global Marshall Plan, which I just read McKinsey have suggested will cost about, I think it was $3.5 trillion, which is about half of what the corporate profits are globally. So, you know, difficult but not impossible. But can I actually propagate this as a journalist, you know, where do people or the viewers start to look upon me as an activist sort of pursuing a message? So what I'm trying to do is sort of give gestalt. So for instance, when the big special report was doing August, I took the chance. I traveled with my team to Greenland and when the report was published in August 8th, I was actually standing with my feet in the melting inland ice and saying, you know, this is what we're talking about, because you did that finally sort of sharpen your warnings or your assessment of the melting of the inland ice. And finally, what I would like to say is when you Lisa talk about this, yes, you know, there's a lot of social sciences creeping into the policy recommendations that is making our reporting more difficult because you are becoming more and more political. So that is some that is a question I have. Is this what IPCC should be doing? Or is it what IPCC needs to do because David Attenborough just said recently that, you know, we're done with the science. We have the science. The climate crisis have turned into a communication challenge. Fantastic. Thank you. Okay, yes, I think that that's, that is a good, good thing for us to reflect on. I'm not sure Michael, if you're going to say anything in that direction. Well, I think the issue about social science is a huge one, because I am a social scientist, so I do feel very strongly about that, but that's another, maybe a later discussion. So now, you are sitting through all of these recent approval questions as well. Yes, I have seen the process from different perspectives, never from two at the same time. And as Camilla was underlining that the amount of literature has increased tremendously yes, which of course has made the process heavier. And also in the bulk of it will let us some changes in how we're going to do that, even though the basic assessment process is still as it was set up more than 30 years ago. And of course, now in post-Carrie's era, again, to the theme, I can ask, should there be a bigger overall analysis of climate change? After, and we have this time to do the most ambitious planning, but it is informative to go back and read the previous reports, the 1st of 1990, then 1995. And so far so good, and I see how the conclusions have changed. The increase is certainty, and now that's how it is on climate becoming warmer and that we are behind that. So there are things in science which are resolved, and it's not just resolved by discussion, resolved by science, on the global summaries. There are other issues with keeping points on which there's deep uncertainty. The ocean currency responds to climate change, for example, with great issues, where deep uncertainty means that, you know, that we do not know, but we should know more. So there's more for science to do. The scope of the science of monitoring, evaluation, and meditation is still up to do. Now, in the political discussion, how to work with the global, with the new global coordination, what can be indicated, which is what you say about that. Or the way we could figure out how big are the costs of climate damages, how do they benefit, which seem to be larger than the costs, which one looks at non-eternal and can be done more than that. The impact is there from the beginning, but one special case is the 1.5 degree core from 2018. Because if you go back to Paris Agreement where the global temperature goes to about two degrees, and let's have 1.5 is ambition. After 1.5 report, it seems like 1.5 is the goal. There's no discussion about where the world is at 1.5, and this is really an impact of that specific report. And numbers from that are also their way to the last goal, decision-based. So there are concrete numbers from 2016. And also now, the naturalization format is my final point. There will be several times when the ITC will present findings from the last two reports in the adaptation in the overall process. But also in the so-called theoretical review, which would add a bit more global damage to the environmental process. So it is there. Excellent. Thank you. And that's a fantastic way to... And also because that is really starting next week, and I know because I'm going to the SB 56, that there's a huge demand for IPCC authors to the various sessions and to contribute to the discussions. So I think that's obviously talking about the reports, not just talking about anything. But I think that it's really clear that the sort of the policy process is... I mean, the policy process in this case is quite interesting because of course it comes after the report, the first report. The first assessment report came out, and then countries said, oh, we need to have some kind of global policy process. So it's clear that this relationship is still very tight and very important. So I think that's the final level that I've had some bumps in the last... But from the first report from 1.5, I guess, I was a little bit of a bump. Good. Well, thank you very much. That's fantastic. And then we're going to now move to Toya to give us sort of an outsider perspective, but also not really because you really often know the science. Yes, well, from an amateur perspective. I have so much to say, I don't know where to start really, but I will start by saying thank you for inviting me. I think that is a beautiful way to show that you are inviting different voices. And it's all about cooperation. And I really think those are... The cooperation and the language are the two keys for me, and especially language. I would love to talk a lot more about language and advocacy. But me as an activist, and many of my activist friends are worn out, and I bet so are quite a few of the advocacy authors and the commentators and correspondents. And I think it has to do... because we're not cooperating very well. Especially within the activist organizations, we all have our own ideas, little groups of what is most important and how to act on our different standpoints. For example, there are a few organizations that think that this report is way too negotiated, and there are others that use it as a pure fact. And I think when the wording... Okay, I'll go back to language. When the wording is as easy for everyone to understand, when it's a four-year-old person being able to understand what is being said. And it has not been negotiated. So let's move to that policy. It's something the policy makers... If that is too negotiated and the wording is too complicated, it's not going to reach all the activist groups. And it's definitely not going to reach the next level of people that are interested or not interested yet, but should be interested and should start back. So if we think that the wording is super easy in the political policy makers, at the same time as we're trying to reach the hearts by those numbers, burning numbers, for example. Such a great expression or vision I got in my head with a three or five of the first years. And then moving back to 30, 40 nowadays. And what's happening with the next diagnosis report isn't going to be just huge, you know? It's... As you notice, I have so much to say in house. I don't know where to start. I didn't obviously do my homework like you all know. But... So I think the cooperation between scientists, social civil society, and communicators is key. Correspondent SVT could maybe show sometimes activist demonstration a bit more. So the activists fields a little bit more that were given a bit of muscles and voices and are seen and heard and respected. And same way with the researchers, they need help from the communicators because it's too complicated the language and the size is so severe that we really, really need to find the gas pedal here and we really need to get the information to reach people's hearts. And that won't happen with the wording existing today in my previous report. I'm quite sure. And I think maybe in about three minutes. Anyways, I need to get my head around what I'm going to say first. Sorry about that. No, thank you. I think that was really important. In fact, I was just... What you're saying, I was thinking about an upcoming... I'm not going to remember now in the working group two summary for policy makers approval because I think it was this sentence that we ended up with. Unfortunately, I was the author who had to discuss with the countries. So this is an example of a sentence. Climate-resilient development pathways are progressively constrained by every increment of warming, in particular beyond 1.5c, social and economic inequalities. The balance between adaptation and mitigation varying by national, regional and local circumstances and geographies according to capabilities including resources, vulnerability, cultural values, past development choices leading to your past emissions and future warming scenarios, bounding the climate-resilient development pathways remaining and the ways in which development trajectories are shaped by equity and social and climate justice. But we have very high confidence. I think that is... I just... I mean, I think I had the chance as an author to say, oh, this is maybe the longest sentence I've ever seen, but I think that the point is that, exactly. I mean, how is that supposed to be interpreted by anybody? And there you can clearly see that is tied to all of the underlying chapters of the working group two report. There's no question that we do have very high confidence. But the way that's communicated by swinging all those phrases together makes it very, very difficult to understand and to parse out but also potentially very easy to use in some way to hijack the tool. I think those are... That's exactly a very good point. Okay, good. So we're coming to the end of our first round now. And so, Georgia, you have a chance to tell us now. Well, I know you had a lot of thoughts as well, but yeah, exactly. So what do you experience this and also as kind of coming in relatively fresh in this IPCC process over the years? Yeah, exactly. So I'm going to try to bring more of a fresh for you perspective on what we're discussing. But let me start by saying thank you so much. I'm super excited to be part of this very diverse panel. And thanks a lot to the audience that is here in the room and also the people joining online. So yesterday, I was in the train coming to Stockholm. So I was reflecting a little bit on the IPCC. So we've heard earlier by Camilla that it was established by the 1988. So that's three years before I was born. But it's also still more than a decade after the fossil fuel industry was made aware of the catastrophic impacts on climate change. So I was reflecting yesterday how far we've managed to go in terms of climate governance over the years. But also how far we still need to go in the remaining of my lifetime. So I am a contributing author to the IPCC and that means that I didn't have to sign up the chapter that I contributed on and I'm kind of held accountable. So in that sense my experience does not necessarily mean that I have a very deep understanding of the whole process like most of the pantheists around me have today. But I have been very lucky to have colleagues that have been part of the IPCC, some colleagues who have been part of it since the 90s. And so I was really able to ask all the questions, questions like who does what in the writing of the IPCC and what does the review process look like? Why is it that the IPCC is called the largest scientific review and what is actually the essence of the eye of the IPCC is intergovernmental and why are governments play a role and what is actually that role? And so I think one of the many learnings that I want to communicate today is really this intergovernmental part of the IPCC, which I think is really a key in terms of achieving the impact and where it would be so far, although still it would go very far ahead. So it was a deep realization to understand that it's not the authors that are mentors of the IPCC but it's the actual governments. And that means that well all the way from the preparation of the outline of the report all the way to final approval of the summary for policymakers, governments and I once were approving the processes and really owning them for us. And that plays then a very big role in the negotiation process of the UNS triple C. So I can get maybe Rachel on back so that depending on how much time I have but maybe I have to close that with talking a little bit on the intergenerational equity so much talking about the language but basically what I mean by that is that as acknowledged by the IPCC we know that basically the cost and effects climate change can be separated by decades or even generations. So that's on the one hand and then on the other hand those who bear the cost of mitigating and remediating might not be the ones that actually reap the avoided harm or the benefits. I do think that the youth has a very strong role to play in a number of ways by volunteering, by being engaging with science or becoming scientists and I think activism has such a role and a strong role to play and I am talking about one of the things I think IPCC the current IPCC is really appreciable is actually that it has a strong role of activism and litigation as part of that. So I'll leave it up to there and share more thoughts. That's fantastic. So we covered a lot of different things and I see that some of you are writing some notes so I'm going to give panelists a chance to say briefly one more thing if you want to add something particularly some securities and diverse perspectives then we'll have a little break so we can stretch and then we'll also give a chance to hear questions and hopefully have a good discussion with the audience. I think we'll go with the same order again if you want to add anything more on that. Well I do think that business and policymakers understand what is in their reports even if they don't understand the language but they understand the message. So there is more problem I think to really think out of the books what really they are to do I mean they think of re-election so I guess that is one of the main obstructions for really taking the step forward and to be I think the social sciences is very important but it also makes the process more complex. So taking care of everyone's aspects when it comes to doing a measure for example an adaptation now we are talking much of malabar but there are very many things you can do but immediately there starts a discussion is this the right way to do and maybe that is what IPCC could try to look more into but it I'm not sure I think they can if they would and we saw that people are also ready to do things during the COVID but after a while they get tired so I think there is also a challenge for the long term to do something important. Yeah, thank you I think that's a very good point about sort of what is it because I think hopefully it's clear to the audience that the IPCC authors come in and are faces assessing the existing literature and it's not a research effort as Camille already explained so we sort of face we now have an overwhelming amount of evidence there is maladaptation and that adaptation isn't going well so what does that mean in terms of how to do it right we know less about that there is more evidence and we are more cautious as well there is less confidence in what works so yeah, these are the challenges that are associated with this the way the structure of IPCC and also with the existing literature which can of course be influenced by governments who can say we are going to have a huge research call for research in various directions to try to fill some of these knowledge gaps as well if we can Good, who's that? Yeah, lots to respond to I think maybe the one thing I wanted to highlight because it mentioned this question of bringing in social science I think actually that's been one of the strengths of the IPCC that it has made an effort to bring in a greater diversity of authors and that could be just by nationality and as was mentioned I'm the first Latvian author they have outreach events to countries that are represented by IPCC real efforts to strengthen Eastern European contributions for example or Iranian contributions I think that's been really good I didn't obviously try to achieve gender balance and then the diversity of experiences so yes, having more social scientists but also having I know there's been an effort to try to include people from business sector for example so I think one of the challenges and it does make it much more complicated because the length becomes a more political process and so it would be really interesting to discuss whatever that has for journalism and for other findings but on the whole I think that somebody has probably benefited from that I think that that's very welcome and hopefully in future IPCC that I was just also reflecting on the fact that of course we haven't really mentioned that we're not paid as IPCC authors it's not it's not a project and a lot of the communication responsibility lies on authors I haven't counted how many presentations I've given on the Working Group 2 report but I've had no money for any of those things so it's a very much that also influences what kind of who is part of the process because not everybody has the flexibility to be able to go and give talks all the time or even be part of the writing process so these are things that are part of the IPCC structure that have both negative and positive solutions I would say good yeah well two reflections the first is that the more exact and specific science becomes the easier it is for us to report on it there's a difference between being a communicator and a journalist I mean we have to put nice old stakeholders including the IPCC but what's helped me in my reporting is the world where the attribution where I was in touch with scientists when the rains happened in South Africa and they very quickly actually could say this is caused by climate change there were rains in Vietnam where they went out and said no this has no correlation this is a one in a hundred year event but so I for the first time named people and said he drowned he died from because of the climate crisis that to me is important instead of taking it the next step but then I share your concern I mean I think the Covid pandemic was an imminent threat to people and so I'm a bit in opposition with you when you say please couldn't you cover our climate demonstrations it will give us muscles that is not our job you know you can never ask media to be there to help an activist movement and especially there are only like 250 or 100s 1700 people in your climate demonstration if there were 200,000 people on the streets of Stockholm I promise you you will get huge but we have to sort of evaluate from a new standpoint as we do everything we sit every morning with a lot of issues on our news desks you know what do we cover today what do we not cover today and I think the civic movement I mean there's a lot of science on that it's immensely important but my big question at the moment is what is actually going to be the sort of what we call the moment where more people decide that they actually want to engage and I didn't realise that you're having internal discussions on you know how to go about it because I think the problem with that is diluting the message and my problem is that I've had this since the beginning of the 80s I've always seen how environmental sort of focus gets hijacked with a lot of interests because they know that when the Brundtland report came and they started talking about sustainable development suddenly everybody used that word because that's where the money was and now we see the climate that's where the money is the attention is on the women's movement are sort of trying to move into the climate and that makes it very complicated for me as a journalist too because that to me is the beginning to be of focus on what we're trying to talk about that's my opinion Well in fact that's actually what the science is showing also that social movements are increasingly becoming extremely sort of integrated and sort of the different justice I mentioned gender justice, racial justice, climate justice all are integrated I just caught a clap from that yesterday from my students so I've just read all the stuff but that's exactly and I can understand what that becomes for me it makes sense but I understand that what is the message it's not that it doesn't make sense it's just that we're talking about saving the world everything everybody all the special interests at the same time and it becomes completely unmanageable it is from my standpoint because I have three minutes to do a story on national television yeah absolutely what exactly good okay so yeah Matt I was thinking about the sentence that we wrote and the good thing about the science is that it is sign off on the correctness of all the messages from indeed some of them always make a so far much appreciated I think it also sort of reflects quite a few things about the amount of information in that thing about the task of the IPC to be always relevant but not always descriptive that is I think it should be always neutral it also reflects that the world is heterogeneous that different countries have different circumstances and they want that to be taken into account so that the message for the boys may be as peaceful and in a balanced manner still sign off by the scientists and so forth but also I mean language is it's a factor the authors work in English the panel works in English but the translation the UL language is for most of the time some aspects are only in English and the countries of people who don't speak so good English follow for the disadvantage and things can happen and that also complicates clouds things that need to be clarified two personal memories one is that we were talking about one text and we didn't get anywhere and then your story says that well if people could come up there then it's there discussion could be three more minutes and then somebody else says yes that makes it clear and that's over then and I mean it's English the other time in the Spanish language it was saying that well can we use some other words and third why? well because in Spanish that means two things it means the earth and it means people think about how the translation in Spanish I mean these kinds of things also play the same as English and also they sort of the language sometimes means tangible so it needs to be read with care and it ends up being this cacato kind of some people always made with approach yeah thank you yeah no I mean I think this is clearly there is a communication element well as you said there are multiple communications dimensions right so it's really and if we're talking about science for policy I think that the issue is also asking about who the actors are who are responsible for caring what kind of message about this so okay so yes I do but I'm going to try to make it clear with the cooperation and the language we want everybody to understand this we want the whole society to act on it there are key persons obviously that has a bigger influence and a bigger impact but we want everyone to understand the severity of this and so if the language becomes a lot easier like for four year old that easy more people will understand it more people will understand the urgency and we will get the cooperation of the bigger society we will get the people that works with advertising into this we will get the people that works with film and that are now too busy with their lives we want everyone else why a four year old why not a ten year old ten year old is good too it's just that we used four year old at an exercise and it turned out really well really really well it was very important for the researchers to do it but it turned out really well but because this is where the cooperation starts and I think it's beautiful that UNEP is also like you inviting activist organizations to have a speech and dialogues for the upcoming of the Stockholm Plus 50 and we were all invited and there were all these different voices being heard and that makes obviously the activist feels a bit better about their task or whatever the uphill movement but we want everyone really to feel that they are on board on this sorry Francis we're going to get George's final comment and then we'll have our little break yeah sure I'll try to be brief so we talked a lot about communication in our last reflections and I think one of the one of the most one of the visualizations I've seen and really is kept in my mind it's a very simple line saying climate change is not real for a period of time climate change is real but it's not caused by humans climate change is real it's caused by humans but it's not bad for a period of time climate change is real for a period of time climate change is real it's not a good line saying oops now I think I really think we're not that's a good in a bad visualization so it's bad in the sense of that it's saying oops I think we're not at the space and I think that's one of the key messages of the IPCC report there is abundance evidence that we have the rapid going into a rapid action but I do think that the IPCC over the years has played a key role in basically changing from all these phases I mentioned starting from climate change is not real that has been influenced quite a lot and massively by communications and misinformation by the industry but this intergovernmental ownership and the very fact that the reports are accepted by the governments meant that the negotiators could not undermine the scientific basis and so we moved on from climate change in terms of real touch climate change is real then we moved on to the phase 2 of climate change is real but not caused by humans which was also again debunked largely due to the IPCC and then we moved on into climate change is real it is caused by humans but it's not that bad and I think we all in this room agree that it is really but we've all experienced impacts both wealthy and poor countries of course poor countries having higher impacts to bear and then I think we're in this phase 4 where we say climate change is real climate change is bad it's us it's humans but it's no longer avoidable and I think that's what we really need to make sure that we communicate that it is avoidable so I think a large portion of this population of the youth can feel hopeless can feel doomed but well it doesn't matter what we do but it does matter what we do and I think that's the biggest strength of this IPCC that provided very evidence that we can do it it's a matter of going ahead with the political view in place Thank you and thanks for bringing these words Hope and June they're also a huge discussion topic so let's have a little break a very short break 10 minutes break and then but don't run away and for anybody online oh you can write questions into the chat and then we'll also pick your questions so yeah good so see you back in 10 minutes 11-19 there's a view online feel free to get some questions in the chat we'll start first with the audience here and then move to the online audience for questions but just a couple of things I picked up from this discussion I wanted to mention thinking about this long history and going back to the 90s the first report I worked on climate mitigation was 1991 and at that time the UNFCCC didn't even exist and in those years in the 90s there was a dynamic that no one wanted to talk about adaptation in the 90s adaptation was the enemy that meant you were giving up so that's a big change if we compare to those times that gradually I think it took some years for the adaptation community to be fully accepted but now of course this is really important and then another thing I was thinking about is this improvement in writing and communications because the UNFCCC is now employing more people to work on this particularly I think now for example in the synthesis report which is underway in which I'm also involved and so you wouldn't get long sentences like that one because these writers are helping with that and then finally it's important to also remember that scientists are people and the views that come out can very much reflect the views of the individuals in fact there's a book came out some years ago it's called The Secret Anarchy of Science and that's what it's about how individual scientists can have their own views are part of the synthesis action so okay so I'm going to turn it back to Lisa to decorate it I do want to point out that that sentence is not written like that that sentence is just that way following the negotiations with the government but anyway yes good so now we have a chance so you will give me a sign if there's any question online so anybody listening please not here I have a question to us I think we have you had a comment that you were putting you wanted to say could you introduce yourself I'm Marco Wadley I'm an Oscar winning film director and a scientist more to the point I'm personally with my partner Dr. Berger we personally talked to five of the six IPCC authors of AR6 co-chance and we've also talked to the intellectual heads of emissions gap report and this question is for them how do we actually inform the Swedish electorate who actually runs the scenes never mind blaming the Swedish government of two things first of all for 50 years on this anniversary for 50 years you've been now this you basically call on everything now nothing you're asking me no no no no I'm saying I'm posing a big question to all of you I didn't mean to look at you you're my fellow media media person now it's a question to all of you how do we inform the Swedish who after all are the ultra high developer 26 ultra high envelopes Swedish is number seven how do we inform them that for 50 years they've basically been now this including right now so I'll call it for me now stop the war keep my prices down everything for the present future secondly most importantly how do we inform the Swedish electorate of what their nation should be doing by responsibility by their contribution to global environmental degradation which means that's what they should be doing to stay within the science limit where we have the carbon budget for one five or two C or whatever it might be the argument is that IPCC currently cannot do this that's the message from the co-chairs and indeed from the emissions gap report the pressures from government have stopped them from really effectively communicating to electorates the idea is that if we can't manage to communicate to the ultra high electorates including Sweden of their responsible reductions then they won't the responsible national reductions then no one else will do it around the world because we're the highest developed we have the most money education and so I didn't mean to look too personally what's the answer to this question can we reform IPCC and actually expect them to do this kind of national communication because we have the global government or do we find another effective mechanism to do that yes sir and can we I think I'm glad you have something to respond I think you have asked a huge question with lots of and a lot of things that we've spoken about here I was wondering though if maybe we could ask who also have thought very much aligned with this I think maybe if you could introduce yourself and explain your how could I see it here I think if you sit there because everybody can bring it up as I said I'm slant the voting I have a lot of history IPCC and I see so many of my old friends on the panel here that I've been working with but what I would like to raise here is an issue that you have not covered so much it connects with your question but it addressed this maybe it's slightly different I organized the very first IPCC assessment evening as a matter of fact which took place in the sun in Sweden 1990 together with the first chairman by colleague my professor and I went to the university and since then I've been in and out when it comes to IPCC and I have been tired of having the pleasure of being head of delegation to IPCC then from 2007 to 2009 and I ended up being part of the Swedish presidency delegation to the COP negotiations I once have been working then with as a recipient of IPCC information on the government not as a politician but as a civil servant but civil servants play a very important role in communicating the IPCC basic messages to the politicians especially governments but so this comes to my question or issue that maybe could be discussed and that it has IPCC so this purpose in informing the governments I mean it's still an intergovernmental parallel that was set up not its main purpose to communicate the scientific findings to the general public or the electorate but to the governments to help them actually and get a grip on other climate issues and I see that because I have also had the opportunity to see how science has been brought into other international environmental issues like the Montreal Protocol for the protection of the old Sunday or for example an issue that's been very important in Sweden as a notification of waters and land which was a huge problem some 15-20 years ago and if you look at it the intergovernmental panel of climate change came before actually the negotiations started on COP or UNFCC was established and then there have been two separate entities but in the other cases science has been integrated into the conventions directly and served the purpose of the convention by being there all the time and supplying the scientific information needed to make progress to fulfill the goals of the convention like the facing of also the taking substances or cutting down on the visions of sulfur and other acidifying substances and had very elaborate scientific structures there was a difference between that and scientists people could say were accused of being hit not by the politicians but that was not I never heard any scientists complaining about being part of the policy process on the contrary they have been very happy doing that but here you have a discussion in an organization that is not politically in that sense that is part of the negotiations of climate change being accused of funding so the question is could there be other ways of doing this or have we invested so much in ITCC we have to deal with it forever and never being able to read it and have more effective you could say integration of science into the work of the global challenge thank you I think I am going to take two questions first because I think they do relate because you also have been in a role in the government the question is about how can we speak Swedish electorate as opposed you might see where the bottlenecks where did the information not flow but you might also see where is the information supposed to flow and that is not the point about the way that the policy construction is very much like the intergovernmental panel that is the client the government they are the ones that the authors write this report that is presented to the governments in the policy process as well but of course but as Toya pointed out of course there is a lot of other people reading these reports now it is not just going to government it is also especially we have this huge movement of social movement that is also picking up on these reports the question is really around who are we writing for who is responsible for making this sort of serving the purpose of in some ways not necessarily just communicated but somehow the boundary person or the organizations who act between the decision makers the people who vote for them maybe the civil servants and the scientists in their various roles yeah I guess we yeah could I I wonder to the folks the question is more focused on national responsibility by the contribution to global environmental degradation in this case it is greenhouse gas emissions now those numbers are down so for example Sweden should roughly be reducing per year now 27% per year now 25% this isn't published anywhere it is very well known it is a simple calculation the calculation is available for all countries the point is that the ultra high countries like Sweden set the standard for the rest of the world who have far less money and far less responsibility so the question is really how do we communicate responsibility to the citizens because we can't expect the governments to really act unless they have the electorate support so the governments of course should be informed as well but it is really about responsibility yeah absolutely no responsibility but I think yeah anyway great I know that you are already sort of to answer so maybe you want to take a first look at this this definition of the question yeah firstly this figure of 27% nearly comes I believe from a WWF report that came out a few weeks ago and we did report on it so it is not true that it has something reported on or if it was Kevin Anderson I mean there was this report that came out so yes it is not reported on that I sort of don't agree with the basic assumption of your question that Sweden because we are one of the most developed countries in the world therefore you would expect us to be the best at reducing our carbon footprint the reason I'm saying that is because Portugal is the EU country that has the highest electoral support for climate reform why because Portugal is one of the most effective countries with forest fires and droughts so the Portuguese are feeling this and they have given their politicians a mandate I think few politicians in the EU have and Portugal is the country which is nearing to fulfill their obligations or what they promised under the Paris treaty so there I see I was there with stories it was very interesting to see the connection between feeling it onto your skin and actually doing it I think that is the problem in Sweden most Swedes still don't feel the urgency I mean we did have floodings in Jävla I have written a whole book how we are losing the Arctic part of Sweden the Fjälland as we call it because of global warming but I don't think that the way to go forward is to address the climate crisis and address individuals carbon footprints who are way too large of course but you know there needs to be political reform but how I mean I am at a loss together with the rest of you I think how to do that but I think your hope for Sweden is sweet but don't think it will be the fact that we are you know highly educated that actually will make us become the sort of beacon in the world then what do we do by extension well go to Portugal well but then we've got 187 nations yeah but what I was saying is that you have to look at where you were talking about electoral support and I'm saying Portugal is a very interesting case in point when it comes to that yeah I think this is so we're sort of touching on a lot of different issues though because we exactly we have these different responsibilities we have these we know the action like at the same time here we have this sort of this interesting creature the IPCC that is part of the structure and is supposed to be part of this sort of guiding the action and providing that scientific underpinning and yeah not what you want to do something else well three parts the IPCC does global assessments doesn't go into country level it doesn't go into local level that's the IPCC and that's how it is in terms of language and communication and some of the policy makers I mean there is a need of extra information on national level I mean we have done something like between a man and a woman taking into account sort of national circumstances more specifically the literature which is specific for the national business and so forth that's great value some of the policy makers I usually say are written for the people who advise the clinicians if you want the science requires that it's transferred to science so it can't be sort of like language without reference or something like that the second thing is that I don't think there's any consolidated science on what's equitable I mean maybe it's as he discusses equity as a very important aspect but not the specifics like in the climate convention we read the article what dangerous climate change it's a very exact word but specifics what it actually means is and this what is the right target of commitments if I didn't count there are some WWF was mentioned Katie Landis as well I saw another that just yesterday about this one I like to put it in conclusions to finding that on the Swedish case I mean the Swedish Parliament has all parties at one behind the climate policy framework which has this next zero goal by 2045 without discussing what the zero actually means and at that time it was an ambition goal it was to have to co-work as well which doesn't mean that it's necessarily like what we need to do and so forth and there's a process of following the Swedish government is discussing a consumption based on so there's a movement in this direction yes Sweden is neither doing enough in the sense that we would be heading towards the national targets it's a climate policy concept and it's very clear to say that it should be going much faster if you're going to go next year by 2040 there's a lot of aspects just going to you and then you can go again okay so let's see we're kind of running out of time so I want to go about 15 minutes left before we're supposed to end if that's correct there is a question and yeah I know you have questions as well so let's just go so don't and then I'm going to give the panelists a chance to respond as well if they have any questions yeah so we can take two online questions since we have two here so the first is from our good colleague Richard Klein who's also a long time IPCC author for decades and so it was mentioned that the 7th assessment the timing of the 7th assessment report means it could assess the extent to which climate action has been effective in responding to earlier calls from the IPCC and the global stock take under the Paris Agreement of the IPCC has a similar objective so here is the question what would the IPCC need to do differently to provide useful input to the stock take and then the conclusion of such an assessment and the global stock take is predictable so of course action is not sufficient so what else could IPCC do other than say oops as Georgie was saying earlier so that's question should we take the second one too yeah great that you're there and essentially Richard so the second is from Nessie the scientific community as expressed through IPCC made explicit value judgments on the safeguarding of human civilization within planetary boundaries would this strengthen or compromise its influence on policy makers so that's the second okay thank you for that question okay so let's see we can we're going to go with these two questions and I would also let any of the panelists if you want to have any other thoughts the first question as well Matt will you pass well I can take the first one process wise now when the 6th assessment report is coming close the panel will start discussing the 7th assessment cycle and how should it look like what kind of reports could be built in and so forth and this will hopefully start in the fall and take maybe a year or so the panel has already noticed or made note of the the Paris Agreement and that there's a five year cycle of the policy assessment including different negotiations the IPCC reports tend to exit the 7th so there has been a process which has led to a handful of alternatives which I hope can be part of the discussion of the 7th assessment cycle different countries have and thoughts which is available in the IPCC homepage anything to go into longer assessment cycles to shorter assessment cycles to doing things like the IPCC does now by having a solid middle period product which will provide for the congressman and the other idea which of course they wanted to redo in the working group structures or there are many thoughts out there a process wise it will be sort of ok yeah exactly I think that you have some questions to jump in that question on how to contribute to the puzzle stock take I mean you're correct and then there's discussions right now about whether or not the IPCC reports should be timed with that but that aside I think one major gap and this maybe gets to your question about the national level so IPCC historically relied on published peer reviewed literature and we haven't been using the grey literature as much and many of the for example in adaptation the current report was informed by this global adaptation monitoring initiative that looked at peer-reviewed literature but didn't really get into the grey literature of the government reporting about what they're doing what's going on and that means they're actually missing a lot and I think for the stock take it would be important potentially to start looking if you wanted us to assess how far progress has been made you would also have to look at government communications not just the peer-reviewed literature and that would be something to consider for future cycles as well as this question of can we be policy prescriptive the IPCC has always tried to stay away from the national level making these judgments on explicit judgments on who's doing more or less and that would either then have to be in the scientific literature so as you say there's a overwhelming body of evidence that we can't ignore then you can report on it or we have to have some kind of agreement that yes the IPCC can start making those type of assessments and I assume that won't change because it's your question about the relationship with the convention and how far we can and can't go in informing action and I think this issue about the value judgment question is also relevant I mean one of the ways that we go about go around that is to anchor kind of the normative dimension in the sustainable development goals which have already been agreed by all the governments and say that this is what governments have said they want to do and therefore that's kind of how we line what we say in terms of if you want to achieve the SDGs then this is what you need to think about for adaptation and vulnerability between impacts for example so yeah so any actually well let's go just yeah maybe not a direct reply to the question but in the beginning I mentioned how there were a few people that really shaped my understanding of the IPCC process and Richard Klein is definitely one of them so I'm really glad to see Richard that you're a part of the of the audience but since you alluded into that oops that I mentioned before I think I'm not sure and the extent to which the IPCC has a role in that but I do believe that one of the key enablers for moving ahead is creating anger as much as that sounds weird to fight against the apathy that that we have in society in terms of I alluded before in terms of feelings of hopelessness or doom and there is literature and I think the psychosis report very clearly the main report has a lot of references from Naomi Oreskes, Joe Frisopron and a number of scholars out there that they talk about well the post-episode industry and the huge misinformation campaign and I think we need to have a fight against that and have kind of unknowledge the history of climate misinformation and let it make us angry and let it enable us to make some action Thanks Maybe you should change oops and fight God what have you done so it creates more personal responsibility for you Joe can I just say it super quickly to your thoughts there we had a talk in Trebek from well-being allies, well-being community and she said such a beautiful sentence and I will never forget it maybe the economic growth has done its part in our part of the world and we have arrived and I think it's very beautiful and relaxing thoughts and why should Sweden why should Sweden not be the first country to really we have everything and more we have more than we need and still we want more instead of getting the dignity and solidarity with the necessary developed countries in this stage I think it's just very touching Thank you for getting that these issues are coming up in the literature right as well so we've got two more questions and I think then we're going to have to take your questions and then I'm going to reflect on the questions and I'll have a final anything you want to say so I'm not going to resist here this yet I was very surprised to hear that you say that social science makes your work more difficult and I would like to if you can give us an example of why social science makes work more difficult and what do you think social science could bring into the table to actually make things easier for you as communicator or for us as part of the access process. Thank you very good question. Thank you so an apologies for the status of my voice but I'm Anna Kronman with the U.N. Human Rights Office on the environment and thank you also first of all for the very rich discussion and I had a quick reflection on the question based on some of the points already raised about communication and clarity and sort of engagement beyond the scientific community and this is also against the background of of course both the summary for policymakers of working group two referencing the importance of bias based approaches, participation inclusion and later on the summary of working group three climate justice and of course in parallel to this we've seen last year both the establishment of a U.N. Special Directorate on Human Rights and Climate Change as well as the recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment by the Human Rights Council and so I would be interested in reflections by the panel on sort of opportunities for meaningful participation including by observers and society in this space and sort of maybe building a little bit on the points that have already been made I think on access to information about both the findings but also the process Thanks so much. Thank you. Did you also have one final question? A very short one. I would suggest if we are discussing the future of IPCC now to change that we should add a summary for future generations we proposed it once so the IPCC would never happen and it obviously included in that has to be information that national groups like Greta here if she can't demand from her own government what they should be doing then where does she get the information from so maybe that could be an idea that besides the policy makers we do one for future generations so they can get the right information to ask the government to do the right thing Oh, I like that and actually there's nothing stopping somebody but yeah, maybe an official thing as well Okay, great, so I think what we're going to do is we're going to ask it first because you've got direct questions about the reporting on social science and maybe then I'm going to just go down the table here and let you give final thoughts about this and any other questions and obviously we could be here for hours more but I think that would be really good so as I was saying we're already very worn out from all the the communication that I can see so Well, thanks for your question So as I said I've been at it for a long time I saw it as a climate correspondent in the 8 days I've travelled vastly as a correspondent which I am proud of because I think the stories I bring home from I've been to 120 countries by now I think and in Africa and Asia before the climate debate we were aware of huge amounts of injustices right you have north south you have the patriarchy, you have the gender issues, you have the suppression of indigenous people I mean a whole vast array of questions that rightfully have been surfacing and addressing different human conferences and then when I go to the cops I suddenly realise that everyone have arrived there they still have their agendas as I've heard them have for decades rightfully so but suddenly they've sort of added the prefix climate to it so what I'm saying it is making my work more complicated not in any way diminishing of course the urgency and importance of different but they are in my view as a reporter they become not a sub-interest but they become a diversion if we are looking at the fact that we are frying with that we have three years to cut emissions I try to focus on what is actually going to make that happen what will cut emissions and not be disrespectful of the gender issue for instance and to end this I think climate justice is hugely important I think we speak don't speak enough about it in Sweden I try to address it in my reporting I have plans for the fall leading up to COP 27 to focus on it so having said that that is I think it's going to be one of my positions and I think it's maybe important also to point out that social science of course there's all sorts of things including why what policy bottlenecks and that sort of thing so it's not just about the sort of gender and justice issues but of course we bring in from a political perspective in a different way looking at the same issues but just come out of it with different did you understand my question thank you good so I'm going to go here now and since you can start so I don't want to answer any questions just to say looking forward I think it is an opportunity for us to in order to avoid the oops and just keep saying and having no action I think there might be time to reconsider the way the IPCC works so for example maybe we don't need to have three words in groups maybe we should have integrated assessments across the groups going forward but also getting back to your question about the conventions maybe it's also time to reconsider how effective are you know you have triple C processes are and I'm just in meeting elsewhere in Stockholm we're discussing actually how the human rights with human rights conventions work could influence a lessons for you and after we'll see and can we learn about how to improve processes and how to change these processes going forward so I think that's something for all of us as a community if we want to see action maybe now is a good time to say what can be you differently to ensure that you don't just sit here and in five years say oops anything a little bit ironic of course is a huge body of literature that actually does look at how could these processes be changed that could actually be integrated into the slide to me well three things I hope first of all I mean what's clearly shown in the latest IPC for consequence across is the connection between climate mitigation, climate adaptation and just getting to develop and some different agendas right result are sort of going more in one to one other which is about the measures and student chiefs and all that and that is coming from the science and also reflecting I guess what the society is currently in discussions the other thing is observers are present in the IPCC process as you probably know and there are some hundred plus observable organizations and they can speak about the countries the observers can also nominate authors and that sort of stuff and there are also other ways for example and I believe that is a good thing that can also be the third one in the IPCC procedures allow user play literature but of course it puts an extra responsibility on the authors to assess the contents that is unbiased that it is correct it is well I don't know that sort of stuff but there is a discussion which is how does one capture information from different languages and there is more and the third one which is my perhaps new personal favorite that how does one deal with predatory termos for example I mean articles which are scientifically published but are not as vigorous as the truth and again it is a responsibility for the authors and of course the process also has to reflect that these things need to be dealt with it's part of the part of the work so all sorts of different knowledge and of course the thing is worth also mentioning that with your two reports we've made a huge effort to try to integrate indigenous knowledge but it isn't there was some pushback from governments but in the way that this had been integrated because most of this knowledge isn't written down and so it isn't it was treated in the same way as either the great literature or the peer review literature we need to think about that sorry, time is running okay, Maria I think as you see it is in a good way in taking this integrated approach between mitigation and adaptation and through resilience which is sort of science as well and also by involving local communities and indigenous people so that is I think it was interesting to integrate all of those three working groups would be one way of minimizing the amounts of to read later so yeah I think that would be interesting to really integrate those things a lot of things in those files yeah, absolutely okay, I'm going to go to Georgia and say if you have any final things that you want to say yeah, sure so well I think my experience is not enough for me to share suggestions in terms of the IPCC reform or anything like that but what I would like to close is with this a quote from Indira Andersson from UNEP that to me was one of the most frustrated or infirming finding saying that the last two decades so the highest increase in emissions in human history even though we know how much trouble we're in so that clearly emphasizes that we are now not in an information deficit problem what I would be excited to see is the role of the IPCC report on becoming a catalyst for protest and just closing with that I'll just mention how I'm looking forward to joining the Pride and Sport future and protest that is this Friday and I invite everybody to join yes one o'clock at other time when I was in Katowice for the COP24 and I had a big sign and it said I want to be able to look into the eyes of my son and say everything I could and a high stand by that of course but I'm thinking with the IPCC and with all of us in the room and everyone who has understood the severity of this problem that we're in to imagine themselves in 20 years time did we speak up did we do everything we could or were we staying within our comfort zones and not being you know not being uncomfortable in order to you know keep on having friends and work and so on and this is the time I think we have a very little window left to start seeing the everything going down instead of continuing on and this is the time to speak up and be bold and take action and be proud of what we're doing rather than regret in a few years time thank you for that did you have anything to add? I just want to say thank you I think you know I've never been able to come home this kind and I think it's been really interesting a lot of food to adopt so I did it in my work so thank you and thank you to everybody for joining and I just want to say thank you to Francis because this is actually Francis' idea and I think that he's making it it's a pleasure to have this group together actually it's definitely a great investment for our time. There was a final question on the chat which is we're not going to answer it but it's a good thing to finish with and the question was when we reach 1.5 degrees of global warming for the first time how will this affect your community and your work? That's something to think about but a little known fact well it's known amongst us but we have already surpassed 1.5 degrees over land the 1.5 references to the average over land and ocean and of course land is where people live and that means the impacts are being felt very seriously and this was brought out very clearly in the land report which was sent to another worker so the impacts are already here and that's making your job a little bit easier I suppose but anyway thanks a lot and we finish.