The reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been influential in the history of the global climate negotiations.
Its third and fourth Assessment Reports helped elevate adaptating to climate change into a critical issue on par with reducing emissions.
The United Nations-sanctioned organisation is in a position to once again push forward global efforts for addressing the climate crisis, especially on Loss and Damage (L&D).
Room for innovation
The outcomes of the 60th IPCC meeting were criticised for a lack of significant innovation regarding its seventh assessment report (AR7).
Despite proposals for a new structure of reporting, the body agreed to keep the current approach of three main reports and a special report.
Some experts and observers claim this approach is unlikely to produce any new groundbreaking findings on mitigation or climate science.
Switzerland proposes first UN expert group on solar geoengineering
As a result, it is unlikely that there will be a special report on L&D for AR7, despite support from many developing countries.
Instead, a chapter under the group report on adaptation is likely to be dedicated to discussing it.
Such an output comes at a time of record-breaking global temperatures and a potential collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.
Without proper interventions anchored on the latest and best available science, even more people than half of the world’s population would be vulnerable to disastrous impacts of tremendous economic and non-economic costs.
A chapter on L&D would influence the entire corresponding landscape under the United Nations climate change regime, from how projects would be selected under the L&D Fund to how the Santiago Network would provide technical assistance to countries on dealing with extreme climate risks and impacts.
Non-negotiables
An L&D chapter on AR7 can lay the groundwork for countries to have a more common understanding of this issue, which is needed to accelerate implementation of solutions.
This would build on the key messages from the previous assessment report, with statements such as its uneven distribution across systems, regions, and sectors and how adaptation would not be enough to fully avoid it.
It falls on its authors to ensure that this part would cover as comprehensive of an assessment of current knowledge about L&D as possible.
Problems mount for Sahara gas pipeline, leaving Nigerian taxpayers at risk
This assessment must include not only peer-reviewed studies and publications, but also documenting indigenous knowledges and practices.
This would be a tangible way of improving the IPCC’s engagements with indigenous groups, a key issue raised from the conduct of the previous assessment cycle.
Another key outcome from the recent meeting, an updating of adaptation indicators, metrics, and guidelines, should be covered within this proposed chapter.
It should present an updated definition of “losses and damages”, which from the previous report is too broad; it should be defined to emphasize impacts and risks that are beyond the capacities of adaptation or mitigation.
Through this lens already commonly-used in many countries, refining and changing said metrics and indicators would help determine clearer boundaries between adaptation and L&D.
Argentine resistance hinders Milei’s forest and glacier destruction
It would also provide more specific guidance for countries and other stakeholders to determine soft and hard adaptation limits, especially at the local level, coupled with the proper provision of means of implementation.
The chapter should present the latest developments in attribution science, especially when downscaled into local contexts. It would contribute to building knowledge and capacities among local policymakers, implementors, and other stakeholders for responding to extreme weather events and preparing for, if not avoiding, future climate risks and impacts.
If our world is going to properly address the climate crisis, it needs to adjust its strategies with current and anticipated trends and impacts. This also applies to the approach of climate science, especially on loss and damage.
John Leo Algo is the National Coordinator of Aksyon Klima Pilipinas and the Deputy Executive Director for Programs and Campaigns of Living Laudato Si’ Philippines. He is an expert reviewer of Working Groups II and III chapters of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.
The post Loss and damage must be a focus of IPCC’s next reports appeared first on Climate Home News.
Climate Change
Earth’s Greatest Underwater Migrations Are Disappearing
From the Amazon to the Mekong, migratory freshwater fish underpin food security for millions, but over 300 species need urgent conservation intervention, warns a new UN report.
Beneath the surface of the planet’s rivers and lakes, the historically heaving migrations of freshwater fish are thinning out. The blubbery-lipped Siamese giant carp of Asia’s Mekong River, the mottled brown goonch of India’s Ganges and the ancient-in-appearance beluga sturgeon of Europe’s Danube River are declining.
Climate Change
Border Communities Remain in the Dark About Federal Government’s Billion-Dollar Buoy Project
The industrial-grade buoys, already being installed in Brownsville, Texas, are meant to prevent unauthorized crossings. But experts warn the buoys could intensify flooding and change the river’s course.
Reporting supported by the Water Desk at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
Border Communities Remain in the Dark About Federal Government’s Billion-Dollar Buoy Project
Climate Change
How can we make the energy transition fair and sustainable?
The extraction of minerals needed for the clean energy transition is projected to expand globally in coming years, presenting multiple risks to ecosystems and Indigenous Peoples, necessitating strong global guidelines.
But what are these minerals, what role do they play in our efforts to combat climate change, and how can we source and use them in an environmentally sustainable way? Let’s take a look!
So, what are these key minerals?
Renewable energy and electric vehicle (EV) technologies will play an important role in combating climate change. These technologies rely on key raw materials, such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, manganese, graphite and rare earth elements.
These materials are often referred to as ‘critical minerals’ due to their perceived significance for national interests or ‘transition minerals’ due to their importance in the clean energy transition.
Where are they found?
While these minerals are found globally, some countries have greater reserves than others, based on geology and the economic feasibility of their extraction. The countries listed below have the highest reserves, listed from first to third.
- Lithium: Chile, Australia, Argentina
- Cobalt: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Australia, Indonesia
- Nickel: Indonesia, Australia, Brazil
- Copper: Chile, Peru, Australia
How is mining these minerals a risk to people and the environment?
There are multiple impacts from mining minerals that are considered critical. Here are a few of them:
- In South America, mining for lithium uses millions of litres of water in and around the drought-prone Andes region, impacting Indigenous Peoples in the area.
- Small scale cobalt mining facilities in the DRC can lack safety measures, leading to fatalities, accidents and serious health issues.
- Nickel mining and processing in Indonesia is causing deforestation and coastal water pollution, in addition to Indigenous and labour rights violations and corruption.
- Global copper mining leads to mining waste in tailings dams which need to be managed carefully to avoid disasters and pollution.
So what can we do?
Some studies projecting massive increases to the demand for transition minerals in coming years are used to justify more mining. However, embracing less mineral-intensive solutions can reduce the need for mining, while still ensuring renewable energy growth.
We need to pressure governments and industries to adopt policies, practices and solutions that reduce demand while also minimising mining’s impacts.
These changes require ambition to go beyond climate action, focusing investment toward less mineral-intensive solutions like EV public transportation, advancing technology to use fewer minerals more efficiently, and expanding reuse and recycling.
What are the solutions to reduce the need for mining?
Given the problems associated with the extraction and use of transition minerals, it is important to remember four key solutions that will help limit the need for mining. They are:
- Sufficiency – prioritise a decent living standard for all while reducing the total energy and material needed across the economy,
- Efficiency – investments to help technologies do the same or better with less materials
- Substitution – remove or reduce the need for certain minerals in products by using different types of technology or energy solutions,
- Recycling – can significantly reduce environmental and social impacts compared to mining, and therefore should be maximised.

Five guiding principles on minerals for energy transition
Greenpeace has developed five key principles essential for ensuring a just and equitable energy transition that can be adapted into local contexts.
- The 1.5°C Guiding Star: We must achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5°C. Any use of minerals must be prioritised for a fast and green energy transition above non-essential uses, such as for military purposes.
- Just and Equitable Solutions: Justice and equity for people and the environment must be embedded in every aspect of using and sourcing materials from reducing mineral demand, to recycling and mining.
- Reduce Demand: Slowing mineral demand by adopting the concepts of sufficiency (ie. reducing the need for resources) and efficiency (ie. enhancing the effectiveness of resource use).
- Prioritise ‘Above Ground’ Materials: Recycling can significantly reduce environmental and social impacts compared to mining. Potential sources include spent batteries, production waste, household e-waste and industrial scrap piles.
- Protect Sensitive Areas and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: While there are many initiatives pushing for improved mining practices, the industry continues to pose serious risks to people and the environment. Three requirements are proposed:
- 5.1 Protect ‘No-Go’ zones, areas where mining should not occur
- 5.2 Respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities
- 5.3 Companies must act responsibly, preventing and mitigating environmental damage and impacts, and respecting human rights.
Irène Wabiwa is a Biodiversity Programme Manager at Greenpeace International
Read our reports:
Minerals for Energy Transition: Greenpeace’s Guiding Principles
Batteries in Transition: Innovation, Uncertainty, and the Minerals Behind Them
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy5 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
