Connect with us


IPCC: Our climate change future will be determined by politics – Quartz



In the doomsday scenario of the world’s climate modelers, every leader acts a bit like Donald Trump. Resurgent nationalism breeds regional conflicts and competitiveness. Security concerns prompt countries to retreat inward. Global development slows and inequality festers, while cooperation on energy and food security goals withers. Major countries such as the US abdicate leadership on climate action as emissions rise, and temperatures soar to searing levels.

Technically, it’s known as the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 3 (SSP3), just one of many models published by scientists in 2016 to game out different futures, and included for the first time in reports developed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But in casual conversation, many climate scientists simply call it “Trump World.”

“The biggest climate impact is not in the highest warming world,”  says Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the environmental research group Breakthrough Institute (he was not involved in designing the models). “The highest-impact scenario is SSP3, Trump World, because so much of world remains poorer.” A breakdown in international cooperation means emissions slow, but so do economies. Human suffering rises as societies are deprived of resources to adapt to rising temperatures.

As the world’s leaders gather later this year in Glasgow, Scotland to announce their climate pledges under the Paris Agreement, this will be just one of the many potential worlds facing them.

What’s different about the sixth IPCC assessment report

On Aug. 9, the IPCC released its sixth assessment report, a series of scientific reports to assess the scientific, technical, and socioeconomic dimensions of climate change.

Every five years or so, hundreds of scientists get together to present the best available science that conveys their understanding of what is happening to the climate, and what we can do about it. Their work is summarized in an IPCC assessment report, the sixth of which was released on Aug. 9.

SSP3—Trump World—is one of five socioeconomic scenarios in the latest report (AR6), assessing the scientific, technical, and socioeconomic dimensions of climate change. The scenarios play a critical role for world leaders who must decide what to do about the planet’s rising temperature.

For years, scientists had relied primarily on geophysical climate models to forecast what will happen as the Earth warms. Their models focused on physics: ocean currents, vegetation, atmospheric concentrations of methane and other greenhouse gases (GHG), along with hundreds of other factors. One of the original versions, built on a 1960s-era supercomputer, was built at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (the first animation is below).

All of this data are fed into massive supercomputers that simulate how the climate system—the interaction between land, oceans, and atmosphere—behaves after we dump billions of tons of GHG into it.

What was missing from these climate models, however, was the biggest variable of all: our decisions about what kind of world we’re building.

Politics can profoundly affect how these models play out, since they largely dictate how much carbon dioxide and methane we pump into the atmosphere. Socioeconomic factors from childhood education to trade policies become an ever more important part of the climate equation over time.

Scientists made previous attempts to account for these influences. In the 1990s, the “SRES” scenarios considered factors like population and economic growth in climate projections. But the “Representative Concentration Pathways” (RCPs) adopted as the basis for later the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report in 2014 excluded those factors entirely.

In parallel, researchers began developing five “Shared Socioeconomic Pathways” to see how the world might evolve. By combining these with the RCP climate-only models, the broader scenarios could tell us just how the world might evolve under different political circumstances, and how hard it will be to achieve emission reductions under them. Scientists could then better understand the interplay between the climate system and humanity’s future development.

Those researchers began publishing their initial findings in 2016, after the publication of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, so their work was pushed into this latest report. While scientists have been running and refining these models for years, they’re now part of the official narrative around our climate future.

From The Green Road to The Highway

Years of supercomputer time have now been devoted to giving us the ability to test very different assumptions about population, technology, economics, and politics that lead to very different worlds. Five baseline worlds laid out by the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway reveal “alternative pathways for future society,” says Hausfather.”We were missing some of the arrows in our quiver the last time around.”

This time the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway models illustrate, in a future without climate policy, just how different those worlds can be. The scenarios, as summarized from the scientific literature, cover five baselines offering alternative pathways for humanity.

Scenario Description
SSP1: “Taking the Green Road:” Sustainability (low mitigation and adaption challenges) The world shifts gradually, pervasively, toward a more sustainable path. Economic growth emphasizes human well-being, wise environmental stewardship, falling inequality, and lower resource and energy intensity.
SSP2: “Middle of the Road:” Historical patterns Social, economic, and technological trends persist. Development, income growth and sustainable development proceeds unevenly. Slow progress, moderate global population growth. Societal and environmental changes remain.
SSP3: “A Rocky Road:” Regional Rivalry / highly challenging Nationalism surges. Policies shift toward security at the expense of development and environmental protection amid rising regional conflicts and a decline in international cooperation. Economic and environmental degradation worsens over time.
SSP4: “A Road Divided:” Inequality Countries (and societies) stratify between rich nations dominating knowledge sectors of the global economy, and poorer nations in labor-intensive, low-tech sectors. Social cohesion degrades. Social conflict intensifies. Technology is not shared equally. Environmental policies primarily serve middle and high-income areas.
SSP5 “Taking the Highway:” Fossil-fueled development Full exploitation of fossil fuel resources produces wealth, rapid technological progress, and human capital development, but leads to much higher emissions. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.

The differences are stark. Under the green road (SSP1), emissions may peak as early as 2040—or not at all under SSP5, where temperatures soar well past the 2ºC increase that scientists say are likely to acidify oceans, intensify storms and coastal flooding, and fuel roasting heat waves and droughts. You can see how emissions and global mean temperature fare under different scenarios below with climate action.

Carbon Brief
CO2 emissions (left) in gigatonnes (GtCO2) and global mean surface temperature change relative to pre-industrial levels (right) with no-climate-policy.

A diverse range of “what if” scenarios

Of course, all of these outcomes are approximations at best. And some of the underlying assumptions are tenuous (SSP3 asserts that most world leaders simultaneously share nationalist governing philosophies) if not altogether implausible (for instance, the assumption that solar power will be more expensive in 2050 than today). But the scenarios aren’t meant to be precise mirrors of future reality. They’re designed to explore a diverse range of “what if” scenarios revealing just how hard it will be to tackle climate change under different conditions. Our future will be a fluid mix of these scenarios over time.

“These are very idealized pathways,” says climatologist Glen Peters, a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate Research in Norway. “In reality, we have a world that is amidst all these different approaches. Our world is a unique world.”

So while none of these scenarios describes our world perfectly, we seem to be moving between them regularly. The “Trump World” of SSP3 might have seemed plausible just a few years ago. But Trump has since lost re-election, Europe’s right-wing swing is stalled, and Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, is battling for political survival.

Indeed, there are already signs that political momentum might shift behind more ambitious climate targets. “In climate change, there aren’t too many silver linings,” says Hausfather, “but we are finally starting to see commitments from countries that are mainly in line with what’s needed.”

Today, a concerted climate effort, or a breakthrough technology such as cheap energy storage, could change baseline scenarios in a matter of years.

A multiverse of potential realities

Policymakers now face a multiverse of possible worlds developed by climate modelers. And their decisions, in part, will decide which scenario plays out. The good news, says Peters, is that the chances for the worst-case scenario, a catastrophic world with a global mean temperature rise above 5ºC, now seem lower. But then so do the odds of a base-case 1.5ºC world where emissions peak and then drop to zero by around 2050.

In this week’s IPCC report, researchers say we’re now “very likely” to exceed 1.°C to 1.8°C of warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100, even in a very low GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-1.9). This suggests a “middle of the road” scenario best describes our emissions trajectory. “We’re not following a 1.5ºC or a 5ºC emissions trajectory,” says Peters. “We’re going somewhere in between.” Hausfather agrees. The most likely emissions scenario, he estimates, puts us on track for about 3ºC of warming by the end of the century, to an average temperature the Earth hasn’t experienced for more than 3 million years. That would severely test many countries’ ability to adapt, and for the impacts for some, such as islands nations, would be catastrophic.

And after that? We don’t know. The IPCC’s models only extend to about the end of the century. In the next IPCC report, researchers can be expected to start looking out toward 2150 and beyond, well within the lifetime for the children of someone born today. ”The world doesn’t end in 2100,” says Hausfather, “even though our models do.”

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link


Taiwan blames politics for cancellation of global Pride event – CNN



(Reuters)Taiwan on Friday blamed “political considerations” for the cancellation of WorldPride 2025 Taiwan after it said the organizers had insisted the word “Taiwan” be removed.

Taiwan participates in global organizations like the Olympics as “Chinese Taipei,” to avoid political problems with China, which views the self-governing democratic island as its own territory and bristles at anything that suggests it is a separate country.
Taiwan’s southern city of Kaohsiung had been due to host WorldPride 2025 Taiwan, after winning the right from global LGBTQ rights group InterPride.
Last year after an outcry in Taiwan, it dropped a reference to the island as a “region.”
But the Kaohsiung organizers said InterPride had recently “suddenly” asked them to change the name of the event to “Kaohsiung,” removing the word “Taiwan.”
“After careful evaluation, it is believed that if the event continues, it may harm the interests of Taiwan and the Taiwan gay community. Therefore, it is decided to terminate the project before signing the contract,” said the Kaohsiung organizers.
InterPride said in a statement they were “surprised to learn” the news and while they were disappointed, respected the decision.
“We were confident a compromise could have been reached with respect to the long-standing WorldPride tradition of using the host city name. We suggested using the name ‘WorldPride Kaohsiung, Taiwan’,” it added.
Taiwan’s Foreign Ministry said the event would have been the first WorldPride event to be held in East Asia.
“Taiwan deeply regrets that InterPride, due to political considerations, has unilaterally rejected the mutually agreed upon consensus and broken a relationship of cooperation and trust, leading to this outcome,” it said.
“Not only does the decision disrespect Taiwan’s rights and diligent efforts, it also harms Asia’s vast LGBTIQ+ community and runs counter to the progressive principles espoused by InterPride.”
Taiwan legalized same-sex marriage in 2019, in a first for Asia, and is proud of its reputation as a bastion of LGBTQ rights and liberalism.
While same-sex relations are not illegal in China, same-sex marriage is, and the government has been cracking down depictions of LGBTQ people in the media and of the community’s use of social media.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Why Wisconsin Is the Most Fascinating State in American Politics – The New York Times



What happens there in November will offer a preview of the political brawls to come.

Wisconsin has long been a crucible of American politics. It remains so now.

It’s where two once-powerful senators, Joseph McCarthy and Robert La Follette, defined two of the major themes we still see playing out today — what the historian Richard Hofstadter called the “paranoid style,” in McCarthy’s case, and progressivism in La Follette’s.

It’s a place that has also proved time and again that elections have consequences. McCarthy won his Senate seat in the 1946 midterms amid a backlash against President Harry Truman, who was struggling to control the soaring price of meat as the country adjusted to a peacetime economy. He ousted Robert La Follette Jr., who had essentially inherited his father’s Senate seat.

Four years later, McCarthy used his new platform to begin his infamous anti-communist crusade — persecuting supposed communists inside the federal government, Hollywood and the liberal intelligentsia across the country. His rise came to an end after a lawyer for one of his targets, Joseph Welch, rounded on him with one of the most famous lines ever delivered during a congressional hearing: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

The state’s modern political geography, which is rooted in this history, as well as deep-seated patterns of ethnic migration and economic development, is as fascinating as it is complex.

Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York Times

La Follette’s old base in Madison, the capital and a teeming college town, dominates the middle south of the state like a kind of Midwestern Berkeley. But unlike in periwinkle-blue coastal California, Madison and Milwaukee — the state’s largest city, which is about 90 minutes to the east along the shores of Lake Michigan — are surrounded by a vast ocean of scarlet.

Much of the state remains rural and conservative — McCarthy and Trump country.

And as in much of the United States, even smaller Wisconsin cities like Green Bay (the home of the Packers), Eau Claire (a fiercely contested political battleground), Janesville (the home of Paul Ryan, the former House speaker), Kenosha (the hometown of Reince Priebus, the sometime ally and former aide to Donald Trump) and Oshkosh (the home and political base of Senator Ron Johnson) have gone blue in recent decades.

The so-called W.O.W. counties around Milwaukee — Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington — are the historical strongholds of suburban G.O.P. power, and political pundits and forecasters watch election trends there closely to tease out any potential national implications. Other portions of the northwestern area of the state are essentially suburbs of Minneapolis, and tend to toggle between the parties from election to election.

The Republican Party’s origins can be traced to Ripon, Wis., where disaffected members of the Whig Party met in 1854 as they planned a new party with an anti-slavery platform. The party’s early leaders were also disgusted by what they called the “tyranny” of Andrew Jackson, a populist Democrat who built a political machine that ran roughshod over the traditional ways politics was done in America.

On Tuesday, the state held its primaries, and the results were classic Wisconsin: Republicans chose Tim Michels, a Trump-aligned “Stop-the-Steal” guy, as their nominee to face Gov. Tony Evers, the Democratic incumbent, over Rebecca Kleefisch, the establishment favorite. Robin Vos, the Assembly speaker who has tilted to the right on election issues but who refused to help Trump overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, barely held on to his seat.

To understand what’s happening, I badgered Reid Epstein, my colleague on the politics team. Reid has forgotten more Wisconsin political lore than most of us have ever absorbed, and here, he gives us some perspective on why the state has become such a bitterly contested ground zero for American democracy.

Our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity:

You started your journalism career in Milwaukee, if I’m not mistaken. Give us a sense of what’s changed about Wisconsin politics in the years you’ve been covering the state.

In Waukesha, actually. Back in 2002, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel still had bureaus covering the Milwaukee suburbs, and that’s where I had my first job, covering a handful of municipalities and school districts in Waukesha County.

A lot of the same characters I wrote about as a cub reporter are still around. The then-village president of Menomonee Falls is now leading the effort to decertify Wisconsin’s 2020 election results, which of course can’t be done. The seeds of the polarization and zero-sum politics you see now in Wisconsin were just beginning to sprout 20 years ago.

Republican voters chose to keep Robin Vos, yet nominated Tim Michels. Help us understand the mixed signals we’re getting here.

Well, it helped that Michels had more than $10 million of his own cash to invest in his race, and Adam Steen, the Trump-backed challenger to Vos, didn’t have enough money for even one paid staff member.

Vos, whose first legislative race I was there for in 2004, nearly lost to a guy with no money and no name recognition in a district where the Vos family has lived for generations. He won, but it was very close.


Behind the Journalism


How Times reporters cover politics.
We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.

What is it about Wisconsin that has made politics there so zero-sum? I’m thinking of developments like the Democrats’ attempted recall of Gov. Scott Walker in 2012, his crackdown on union power, and the Legislature’s efforts to curtail the power of Tony Evers, the current governor. What’s the deal? How did the state get so starkly divided?

The Wisconsin political and media ecosystem has long been dominated by conservative talk radio hosts. More than any other state in the country, Wisconsin’s right-wing talkers control the political agenda, and like Fox News nationally, they generate ratings by stoking outrage — usually against Democrats, but sometimes against fellow Republicans.

Scott Walker was raised in this environment. He was a backbench state assemblyman who became widely known from calling into the Charlie Sykes show on WTMJ in Milwaukee. Those shows always had a villain — usually, whichever Democrat or newspaper reporter was in the host’s cross hairs for the day.

When Sykes would spend a segment attacking one of my articles in the morning paper, my voice mail box at the office would be full of angry callers by the time I got to my desk. Imagine what that does to elected Republicans when are on the receiving end.

Skyes has since reinvented himself as a never-Trump podcast host and columnist — and he now trains his considerable rhetorical talents against the Republican Party he once enthusiastically supported. He’s traded his local influence for a national platform.

You cover a lot of the machinations over the control of American democracy. Is there anything unique about how these battles are playing out in Badger country?

Republicans have such control of the levers of power in Wisconsin that voters are almost immaterial. It is the most gerrymandered state legislature in the country — a 50-50 state where Republicans hold 61 out of 99 seats in the Assembly and 21 out of 33 seats in the Senate.

There is at the moment no functional way for Democrats to carry out any sort of policy agenda in Madison; their only hope is to have a governor who will veto things. And the Wisconsin Supreme Court has a 4-to-3 conservative majority that has, with some exceptions after the 2020 election, toed the party line for Republicans.

Some states, like Michigan and North Carolina, have managed to work through many of these same issues and create a more level playing field that reflects the real balance of power between the parties. Why hasn’t Wisconsin done so?

Wisconsin doesn’t afford its citizens the opportunity to petition things into law or the state constitution like Michigan and dozens of other states do. So the only hope is through the Legislature, where Republicans have shown no compunction about maintaining their hold on power through whatever means necessary.

Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times

On Politics regularly features work by Times photographers. Here’s what Haiyun Jiang told us about capturing the image above:

When the Senate began its “vote-a-rama” for the Inflation Reduction Act, a marathon series of votes on amendments, I was on Capitol Hill trying to capture the mood and action as senators prepared for an inevitably long weekend.

Around 9 p.m., Senator Ron Wyden, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, walked into the press gallery for a briefing with reporters. “I heard that you all wanted a little post-dinner entertainment,” he said as he sat down.

A tall man, Wyden was visibly uncomfortable in a sofa chair that was low to the ground. As the briefing went on, he periodically stretched his legs. I decided to wait for the moment when he stretched again.

His posture conveyed the exhaustion and weariness that I hoped to capture, with a long night of debates and votes looming over everyone on Capitol Hill.

Thanks for reading. We’ll see you next week.

— Blake

Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Baghdad gripped by protests as political rivals vie for power – The Washington Post



BAGHDAD — Rival protesters took to Iraq’s streets Friday as their leaders vied for political dominance, just 10 months after a U.S.-backed election that was meant to heal the country’s fractures left many more exposed.

The aftermath of those polls has forced years-long tensions to the surface. In a country where elites rule by consensus, rival Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni politicians have been unable to agree on key government appointments. The election’s biggest winner, powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, has withdrawn his parliamentarians from the process, sending his supporters instead to occupy the leafy grounds of the legislature.

He is now calling for early elections, which would be the second in less than a year.

As dusk approached Friday, Sadr’s supporters gathered in provinces across the country and outside the parliament to echo his demands. But they were not alone. Several miles away, near Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone, thousands of foot soldiers for the cleric’s rivals — former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and leaders of armed groups linked to Iran — gathered too, protesting what they described as a “political coup” by Sadr.

By nightfall, a crowd of hundreds was building tents in the capital, and people said they were setting up for the long haul.

“We’ll stay as long as it takes,” said Ali Hassan, a 30-year-old government employee from Baghdad. “The people know our demands, and they know that they are legitimate.”

Iraq’s wildcard cleric upends politics as summer heat descends

While the politics were complicated, the core problem was simple, analysts said. Twenty years after the U.S.-led invasion, winners from the kleptocratic political system it ultimately installed are now fighting over who reaps its spoils.

Locked out of that system are millions of ordinary Iraqis who have seen little benefit from the nation’s immense oil wealth. Hospitals are crumbling, and the education system is among the worst in the region. For three days last week, as a heat wave pushed temperatures past 125 degrees, three southern provinces failed to even keep the lights on, as the extreme heat pushed an already shaky power grid to the breaking point.

Iraq broils in dangerous 120 degree heat as power grid shuts down

Iraq’s last elections took place several months early, as a response to mass protests that demanded the overthrow of the political system. The young and mostly Shiite demonstrators were met with brutal repression, and Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi was forced to step down after almost 600 people were killed.

In October, fresh polls left Sadr with the largest bloc in parliament, and Maliki with the second, as historically low voter turnout left powerful parties with large bases as the biggest winners. Many Iraqis viewed the polls as an exercise in reshuffling the political deck chairs, and said that none of the major factions represented them.

But the atmosphere was festive outside Baghdad’s parliament on Friday as men in black T-shirts streamed through the streets carrying photographs of Sadr and his father, a revered cleric killed by dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime, to demand more elections, and the sidelining of all the “old faces” — apart from Sadr.

A tinny loudspeaker blasted music through the air as bands of protesters sang and swayed, others enjoyed free kebabs or large chunks of melon. “We’re here to dissolve the parliament and to stand with Sayeed Moqtada’s demands,” said Hassan al-Iraqi, a religious studies student in his 30s who said that he had made the five-hour journey from the northern city of Mosul.

Sadr derives his strength in part from millions of impoverished supporters who view him as a sacred figure of storied lineage, and as someone who has resisted occupation and injustice. For weeks, he has used his Twitter account to praise his supporters’ efforts on the streets, likening their efforts to a “revolution.”

The messages have been received with a mix of excitement and reverence, as bands of teenagers pass around cellphones to read his posts.

By nightfall Friday, politicians from the opposing bloc were tweeting statements in praise of their own supporters too.

Maliki called the rallies “massive” and peaceful.

“Today you have brought joy to the hearts of Iraqis,” wrote Qais al-Khazali, a Shiite cleric aligned with Maliki. “The martyr Muhandis is all happy when he sees his sons defending Iraq and the interest of the people and the state with courage and awareness,” he wrote, in reference to a powerful militia leader killed alongside Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in a January 2020 drone strike ordered by President Donald Trump.

Experts point to that drone strike as a seminal moment in Iraq’s latest unraveling — both of the slain men were pivotal figures in maintaining unity among the country’s now divided Shiite factions.

In Baghdad’s city center, another group also gathered Friday as the heat ebbed and traffic snarled the streets. They were secular activists, and they had planned their own protest in a place etched in the annals of the American invasion: Firdoos Square, where U.S. troops once pulled down a statue of Saddam Hussein.

“This whole system was built on a mistake,” said Najad al-Iraqi, an activist, who said he had not voted in a single election since Saddam’s fall. “None of these parties have ever worked for us,” he said. “They’re all corrupt, every one of them.”

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading