Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. Now our climate story of the week.

UN Secretary General António Guterres: Some government and business leaders are saying one thing, but doing another. Simply put, they're lying and the results will be catastrophic. This is a climate emergency.

Brian Lehrer: Who is that accusing a lot of governments of lying? Well, that's UN Secretary General António Guterres, speaking about the latest findings of the IPCC. That's the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that was on Monday. This latest report is clear about why and how on scaling back emissions on average every year in the last decade, we saw a 1.3% increase in global emissions hitting 59, what they call gigatons, in 2019. Such unprecedented levels of emissions have left us on track to double the limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming that scientists have warned we must not exceed.

The promises of the Paris Climate Agreement by and large have gone unfulfilled. Guterres has in turn called this latest report a litany of broken climate promises, a file of shame, cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track toward an unlivable world. That's a quote. In the words of one of the IPCC's co-chairs, Jim Skea, it's now or never. Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible. We'll talk about some of the specifics of this report, including the requirement that all 195 IPCC member states-- did you even know there are 195 countries in the world?

They all have to agree to the findings and the wording of the report. We'll talk about whether that has meant certain forecasts were downplayed. This is our climate story of the week a six month long feature we're doing on the show at least through the month of August. We began it in February. With me now Jake Spring, Global Climate and Environment Correspondent for Reuters happens to be in New York right now. Hi, Jake. Welcome to WNYC.

Jake Spring: Hi, Brian. Thanks so much for having me on the show.

Brian Lehrer: In recent weeks for people who've been following this, the IPCC has released a few different reports with dire warnings about the consequences of our continued reliance on fossil fuels. I don't think many of them have broken through very much in the news with Ukraine and other big things that are going on, crime domestically, COVID et cetera, et cetera. That's why we're doing a climate story of the week, to make sure this all doesn't get lost among the things that seem more immediately urgent. Tell us what the IPCC is doing. Why is there a rash of reports right now?

Jake Spring: It's a long process. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does this cycle of reports every five to seven years. These reports have already been in the works for a long time. Usually, they don't want to change the process at all for any political concerns, so they stayed the course. This one did take a little bit longer than usual because like you said, 195 governments have to agree and that's never an easy task. Basically, they stayed the course, they released their reports, they hope they still get attention. I'm sure they're very pleased that you're choosing to highlight it on your show despite everything going on in Ukraine that is really dominated the news cycle for months, and probably rightly so.

Brian Lehrer: That clip we played from the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. UN Secretary Generals tend to be very cautious in their language, but he called out governments. He didn't say which ones, I don't think. It certainly didn't in the clip, but he said some government and business leaders are saying one thing but doing another. Simply put, they are lying. It's pretty unusual, I think, for UN Secretary General to call out member states for lying like that. Tell us more about that.

Jake Spring: Yes, Guterres, the UN Secretary General has been keeping up this drumbeat of pressure on governments. Every report in the cycle that has come out, he said, "This is urgent. Governments need to be doing more and they're not." It's really his job to prod governments to make more commitments to address climate change. He's been keeping that pressure up. I believe he said carbon emissions that are causing climate change need to come down, but currently with all the pledges that have been made, they're still projected to rise 14%. We're still supposed to blow past this level where in the next two decades where we tip over into catastrophic climate change.

Expect many more wildfires, intense hurricanes and all the things that come with that are going to get a lot worse. Every single report, it becomes more urgent the longer action isn't taken, the more we have to do faster to avert this catastrophe. Guterres, I think that's top of mind for him whereas maybe previous secretary generals, their number one issues have been other things, but he's really been focused on climate change. These pledges, governments say they're doing things to address climate change, but it just isn't enough. They haven't stepped up nor have business leaders for that matter. They're not incentivizing what needs to happen to stop climate change from becoming a catastrophe.

Brian Lehrer: How specifically did he call out any governments or businesses?

Jake Spring: I'm not actually sure that he named names. He usually doesn't name names, but it's usually a you know who situation. We're talking about a lot of fossil fuel producing countries. You'll see in the final proceedings that Saudi Arabia and Russia often push for things that are interpreted as being pro-fossil fuels. They want to represent positive impacts of climate change, which any scientist will tell you that the negatives far, far outweigh the positives.

He's nodding at those countries, but also at developed countries who maybe they're not producing the most fossil fuels, but consumption is just extremely high in the US and Europe, even if maybe production is outsourced elsewhere in terms of food emissions and things like that. He's blaming everybody. Collectively, we're not there and it is everybody's fault basically.

Brian Lehrer: Didn't emissions in the United States come down during the pandemic or is that wrong?

Jake Spring: They did, I believe. I know globally they did, but they were right back on the upswing more recently. There was a brief dip, but we're back on the rise. As you said, we're still on this trajectory of rising 1.3% a year. It was a brief respite, but really, we snapped right back. The economy is going pretty good again and emissions are rising.

Brian Lehrer: Now, listeners this is a chance for you to call in and ask questions about the latest findings of the IPCC, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This latest report specifically addresses the why and how of scaling back global greenhouse gas emissions. Your questions for Jake Spring welcome here. He is global climate and environment correspondent for Reuters. 212-433-WNYC. He reads these really long, really dense IPCC reports, so you don't have to. 212-433-WNYC. If you want to ask him anything about these latest ones that have been coming out in recent weeks, 212-433-9692 or tweet @BrianLehrer.

This is WNYC FM, HD and AM New York, WNJT FM 88.1 Trenton, WNJP 88.5 Sussex, WNJY 89.3 Netcong and WNJO 90.3 Toms River. We are a New York and New Jersey public radio and live streaming at wnyc.org at two minutes before eleven o'clock. Jake, I wasn't aware until I read your reporting from a few days ago that this IPCC report could only be released after 195 governments signed off on the findings and the wording of the report. Obviously, that creates the necessity for compromise on language. Was there any evidence that certain petrostates actively sought to have the findings downplayed or sugar-coated?

Jake Spring: Like you said, it needs to be approved by 195 countries. They can change the summary, which is the 40 pages of what policymakers are supposed to take away from this report. They can't change the underlying 3,675-page report that scientists agree to, but honestly most people won't read because it's more than 3,000 pages long. You see these last minute wranglings over changing nuanced language in the summary. One of the issues is they're closed proceedings, these proceedings, and only after the fact, some like watchdog groups publish summaries of what happens in the meetings and I haven't had a chance to pore through them and see what happened in this report.

I have had the opportunity to do it for the one that came out last time. You saw things like Saudi Arabia and Russia pushing for including things on the benefits of climate change. For Russia, for example, there will be less ice in the Arctic so that will be good for fishing for them. That's a very narrow benefit that most scientists think this is not where the focus should be. There was one very interesting change between we had seen a leaked draft of the summary before it was finished. One key thing changed around meat consumption, which is very interesting. What people eat is a hot-button issue.

A lot of people really, enjoy eating meat, it's part of their culture and things like that. A draft suggested that consumers should shift to plant-based diets and reduce their intake of meat. In the final version, you'll see its shift to only talk about balanced diets that include sustainably produced animal products alongside plants, like grains, legumes, things like that. One of my colleagues spoke to an author, and it's not really clear to me as yet who pushed for that change how that change got made. We're talking about so much documentation, hugely long reports, meetings for days. It's a ton of information to pore over. It's not immediately clear to me how that change got made and who pushed for it.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call from Aaron in Brooklyn, who says he's a climate activist. Aaron, you're on WNYC. Thank you for calling in.

Aaron: Hey, thank you so much for having me, Brian. I've been looking at some of these reports. The report said, we have 30 months to transition to renewables and to avert the worst of the climate crisis. Hearing that the US blocked a lot of the language in the summary for policymakers. I want to bring it home closer to New York because looking at that 30-month time frame, we're now well over 30 months from our last major climate bills in New York State, and New York State still only at 4%, wind and solar. Something we've said is that its builder burn time in New York, build renewables or burn our future.

The Secretary-General said and agreed with us, he said, "Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals." It is truly the dangerous radicals are the countries and states that are increasing production of fossil fuels. Investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure is a moral and economic madness. There's one bill in Albany, that's a bill public renewables act that guarantees New York meets our climate mandate getting to 70% renewables by 2030. It would add $90 billion to the state's economy, and 50,000 jobs and yet, it's still languishing.

From this messaging from the Secretary-General, from the IPCC report, it really is time for all the need to meet the moment and pass not only the bill, public renewables act but all the bills in the climate can't wait package, because it's the bare minimum of what's necessary now.

Brian Lehrer: We've done two segments on the show in the last few weeks, as the state legislature has been in this budget season where most of the big bills for the year get passed, two segments on specifically on climate legislation being considered. Aaron, it seems like the biggest thing that way we may hear when they come out from behind the closed doors maybe any time now might be something about gas hookups. That buildings around the state and I've read that buildings, residential buildings are the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases even more than transportation or power plants.

No more natural gas hookups by the year 2027 or 2030. Everything would have to be all-electric, which ultimately consumes or produces, I should say less greenhouse gas emissions. Since you're paying attention to the New York State context, are you looking for that to pass? How significant would that be in your eyes as a measure toward New York meeting its longer-term goals? Aaron, I'm asking you.

Aaron: Thank you so much. It's a great bill, the all-electric buildings bill and it's actually something the activists and the movements are calling for it not to be the 2027 timeframe, but to push it up to make sure that it's all sooner, and that we need it now because any longer we wait as this IPCC report says is no good. That bill is actually one of that climate can't wait package of 11 bills. That bill alone is not something we can just tip our hat on. We need to pass all of these bills. Scaling up renewables, if we're going to switch over to all-electric buildings, we need to have the renewable energy to produce that and to make sure that that's happening, rather than having that be powered by imported renewables or imported renewables taking away and making other places use gas.

The bill public renewables act is really expanding NYPA the New York Power Authority, which is following the legacy of what FDR did in the early 1930s, in creating NYPA, and then was used as a new deal model to make sure that New York meets our moment for renewables and meets our moment for energy security here.

Brian Lehrer: Aaron, thank you so much for your call. We really appreciate it. We're going to go next to Virginia in the Bronx, who has a question I think about the IPCC report for our guests Jake, climate correspondent for Reuters. Hi Virginia.

Virginia: Hello. I looked into an episode of reveal there on WNYC. It's a great investigative journalism program to an episode called, Can the Climate Survive Bitcoin? I have to say, it really scared the dickens out of me because all of the normal ways that climate change gets talked about, I mean, all of those predictions and timelines and things are just going to be blown past by what's happening with the development of the cryptocurrencies. Even to the point where, we're having one conversation on one side about coal and all of that, but Bitcoin has actually already resulted in coal-powered plants that were about to shut down being reopened and expanded.

My question is, does this report address the effect of the cryptocurrencies particularly Bitcoin on the climate? I think that has so far been only a financial story. People mostly think that it's, "Oh, maybe just a little bit more electricity." It's not it's so much more damaging than that.

Brian Lehrer: Great question. Jake has the IPCC taken on Bitcoin mining as a climate issue?

Jake Spring: I won't claim to be an expert on what it says, it is mentioned as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. It does get back to just Bitcoin requires a tremendous amount of electricity to mine. It depends where that electricity is coming from. If it's coming from coal as a lot of electricity still does or even natural gas it is generating emissions. I will note that I'm no crypto expert. This is really on the cutting edge of scientific research, like cryptocurrency NFTs, non-fungible tokens on NFTs, and their climate impact. I was looking to the other day, they're very, very few studies. I can't get into detail numbers on how much crypto is responsible but it is cited in the report as a source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Brian Lehrer: All right.

[crosstalk]

Jake Spring: They're very clear that--

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead.

Jake Spring: Sorry, they're very clear that all sectors need to come down. Whether it's Bitcoin or farming or fossil fuels any source needs to be reduced if we're going to get to where we need to go.

Brian Lehrer: Virginia again, thanks for your call, and good that Reveal did a show on that we'll have to come back to that for sure on this show and do a segment on Bitcoin and the climate. When people say Bitcoin mining, I'm sure people who have not looked closely at the issue think, "Well, it's this is virtual mining." Coal mining definitely contributes to climate pollution. That old school kind of mining, where you dig into the ground and then you burn up the stuff that you dig out. Bitcoin mining is just virtual, you do it on your computer, but as Virginia and you pointed out there are apparently big electricity demands for this.

We will come back to that and look more closely at it on a future show. This IPCC report said at the current pace emissions are on track to raise temperatures a staggering 3.2 degrees Celsius. That's more than what the climate pledges the countries around the world have made promise to limit it to which is 1.5 degrees Celsius. The promises in the Paris Climate Accord are apparently going unfulfilled. Why do they cite 3.2 degrees Celsius? Even again to the casual observer who doesn't follow a lot of climate news 3.2 degrees Celsius maybe that's 5 degrees Fahrenheit and 5 degrees is not going to change your life individually but it changes the earth.

Jake Spring: Yes, Brian it changes the earth very considerably. We've already seen 1.1 degrees Celsius of warming. We're not far off from 1.5. If we get up to the 3.2, we've already seen the impacts and every additional 0.1 degree the amount of impact is going to get larger. There are a million ways it affects the climate system. For example, hurricanes, warmer sea waters, even slightly warmer sea waters cause more intense hurricanes and put more moisture in the air that fuel those hurricanes and fuel higher winds. We're already seeing the impacts at 1.1 so 3.2 is probably going to be hard to imagine.

The extreme wildfires, we're seeing extreme heat waves that killed people in the Pacific Northwest, the cold snap in Texas. We see things are already going hay wire. Now if it's three times this just try to imagine three times this, and the scientists say it will be more than three times. This every additional bit will be worse than the last bit.

Brian Lehrer: Does the IPCC and this is going to be the last question we have the great Elizabeth Alexander standing by as our next guest. Did the IPCC report address or recommend any specific market or regulatory tools that might alleviate this unchecked growth toward a catastrophically warming world?

Jake Spring: Sure. There are a ton of different things that can be done. The number one thing is cutting fossil fuel use which is responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions. That would come down to governments often encouraging people not to use fuel for transportation. That might be taking more hard measures to completely block the usage of cars in city centers, to find ways to force people to take public transit or use bike lanes. It also comes down to growing forests, planting trees but also stopping deforestation. It does come down to eating less meat so there are fewer methane emissions from cows and other land use related emissions.

Really it emphasizes there's action needed in all those areas and those are some of the big areas they mentioned that action is needed and governments need to incentivize this action. People aren't doing it on their own.

Brian Lehrer: That folks is our climate story of the week here on the Brian Lehrer Show. The latest IPCC report as reported by our guest who has maybe the best name ever for matching his name to his beat. It's Jake Spring and he's the Global Climate and Environment Correspondent for Reuters. Jake, thank you so much.

Jake Spring: Thanks so much, Brian for having me.

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.