Ive here. While the West is busy focusing on the war in Ukraine and fossil fuel companies coveting being allowed to increase greenhouse gas emissions, increasingly dire warnings from the IPCC are being ignored. Ukrainian babies are defending faster planetary degradation.

Thomas Newberg.Originally Posted in spy of god

By the time of the next IPCC report on the way forward, 7 to 8 years from now, we will already know whether we have a decent chance of achieving a sustainable future – or whether we are facing the devil who only offers devastating costs Trade which way we go from there.
– A savvy climate analyst (via email) about the just-released IPCC Working Group 3 report

If the rich had planned to save our species from impending catastrophe, they would do it now, and we would watch them do it.
-yours truly, here

The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) is nearing completion. Products of Working Groups 1 and 2, i.e. those dealing with the physical sciences (WG1) and one that deals with impact and vulnerability (WG2), has come out. The report of Working Group 3 on adaptation, just released. All that’s left is a comprehensive report summarizing all three. (For more information on these reports, see our previous comment here.)

Unlike before, the WG3 report was dire. (All citations in this IPCC report are from Summary for Policymakers. Just for Title statement, go here.)

As usual, the language is dense and blunt, albeit accurate. E.g:

SPM.C.3 Some soft constraints on human adaptation have been reached but can be overcome by addressing a range of constraints, mainly financial, governance, institutional and policy constraints (high confidence). Hard limits for adaptation have been reached in some ecosystems (high confidence). As global warming increases, losses and damage will increase, and additional human and natural systems will reach adaptation limits (high confidence).

You have to think about this to get it. Paint a picture, it won’t. “Hard fitness limits” include death.

or:

SPM.C.4 Growing evidence of maladaptation[15] Since AR5, many industries and regions have been spanned. Adaptive responses to climate change can lead to locked-in vulnerabilities, exposures and risks that are difficult and costly to change and exacerbate existing inequalities. Maladaptation can be avoided through flexible, multisectoral, inclusive and long-term planning and implementation of adaptation actions that benefit many sectors and systems. (high confidence)

“Maladaptive” means choosing a solution that locks in the problem.30-year-old methane (“U.S. clean energy”), for example, as a solution to climate change is a “maladaptation” — like switching to a different poison when you’re dying.

and:

SPM.C.5.1 Political commitment and follow-up at all levels of government has accelerated the implementation of adaptation actions (high confidence). Implementing actions may require significant up-front investments in human, financial and technical resources (high confidence), while some benefits will only materialize over the next decade or more (medium confidence). Accelerated commitment and implementation can be facilitated by raising public awareness, establishing a business case for adaptation, accountability and transparency mechanisms, monitoring and evaluating adaptation progress, social movements and climate-related litigation in some regions (medium confidence).

Shorter version: “Political and capital investments are needed to address this, even if the returns and outcomes are not apparent for a decade or more.” (Du.) Also, “Building a ‘business case’ for climate change adaptation It’s also important.” (Now that’s just stupid, like asking to make a business case for a village hospital before it’s built.)

The Summary for Policymakers should be a non-technical chapter for someone like Joe Biden. It’s like they don’t want to be understood. (They don’t. Again, look this analysis.)

in plain english

But the following clearly shows how dire the situation is. From the climate-savvy analyst quoted at the top:

2025 is now a make-or-break year. Globally, the IPCC found that we must peak greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 to limit warming to 1.5°C, and delaying the peak beyond 2025 would mean unavoidable and unnecessary economic losses.

This is from the WG3 co-chair himself in an interview with The Guardian via Brad Johnson’s excellent newsletter, Hierge:

“Don’t miss out, don’t miss outif we want to limit global warming to 1.5C,” Jim Skea, co-chair of IPCC Working Group 3, said today freed of the group Climate Change Mitigation Report. “This will not be possible without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors.”

“Now or forever,” said the co-authors of the WG3 report. If only they could write as they speak.

Why none of this hit home

Of course, the problems are these, anyone with eyes can see:

• Complete political control of the ruling class by fossil fuel companies (our rulers are determined to keep us carbon until they can’t)
• The pathological greed and hubris of our ruler is very, very rich
• Anyone with power, and certainly anyone with power in America, refuses to end fossil fuel subsidies
• And not mentioned in this report, the wealth-controlled mainstream media refuses to make this seem urgent

Regarding the third point above, Thom Hartmann in his daily newsletter, say this(emphasis mine; source link):

[I]Driving an electric car is much cheaper no matter where you live. Many new EVs are now priced ($27,400 for a Nissan Leaf, for example) even lower than the average U.S. gasoline-powered car ($38,700).

Don’t bother using a search engine to try and find this information, though. Fossil fuels are a trillion-dollar industry, and American taxpayers — you and I — subsidized the industry more than $600 billion last year.

IMF calculation $5.9 trillion in global fossil fuel subsidies 2020: That’s it $11 million per minute.

The rich people who run this place, very, very rich people, are subsidizing some of our (and their) purposes. How strange is this? How ironic the story can be after no one has read it.

One might argue that the world has had a “make-or-break” year — a few decades ago. Significant action will be taken to stop us from moving to a place where “no matter which way we go we pay a huge price”. However, our rulers simply refused to take any “significant action”.

Instead, we provide Predictably weak commitments who is our current president break those as fast as possible. this Satire is world history.