The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is in the final stages of its Sixth Assessment cycle. Be on the lookout for its AR6 SYR on March 20, 2023.
Every 6 to 7 years, the IPCC publishes comprehensive scientific assessment reports. The last report, the Fifth Assessment Report completed in 2014, provided the main scientific input to the Paris Agreement. Be on the lookout for the Synthesis Report of the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6 SYR) on its scheduled release date of March 20, 2023.
The IPCC is a UN body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change. The body provides political leaders with periodic scientific assessments about climate change. It also covers climate implications, risks, as well as adaptation and mitigation strategies. The assessments help governments develop climate policies. They also offer input into the international negotiations to tackle climate change.
For the assessment reports, experts worldwide volunteer their time as IPCC authors. The IPCC authors evaluate thousands of scientific papers published each year. They provide a comprehensive summary of climate change. They summary includes ways in which adaptation and mitigation can reduce the risks imposed by our changing climate. The IPCC reports are drafted and reviewed in several stages to guarantee objectivity and transparency.
The AR6 SYR style is non-technical, in the six official UN languages. It consists of two parts, a Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of 5 to 10 pages and a Longer Report of 30 to 50 pages.
We’re looking forward to reading the report and sharing key takeaways.
“This is a historic day for conservation and a sign that in a divided world, protecting nature and people can triumph over geopolitics,” said Greenpeace in response to an agreement to protect world’s marine biodiversity.
Ocean conservationists expressed elation late Saturday after it was announced—following nearly two decades of consideration and effort—that delegates from around the world had agreed to language for a far-reaching global treaty aimed at protecting the biodiversity on the high seas and in the deep oceans of the world.
“This is a historic day for conservation and a sign that in a divided world, protecting nature and people can triumph over geopolitics,” declared Dr. Laura Meller, the oceans campaigner for Greenpeace Nordic.
“We praise countries for seeking compromises, putting aside differences, and delivering a Treaty that will let us protect the oceans, build our resilience to climate change and safeguard the lives and livelihoods of billions of people,” Meller added.
The final text of the Global Ocean Treaty, formally referred to as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction treaty (BBNJ), was reached after a two-week round of talks that concluded with a 48-hour marathon push between delegations at the United Nations headquarters in New York.
“This is huge,” said Greenpeace in a social media post, calling the agreement “the biggest conservation victory ever!”
Rena Lee of Singapore, the U.N Ambassador for Oceans and president of the conference hosting the talks, received a standing ovation after announcing a final deal had been reached. “The shipped has reached the shore,” Lee told the conference.
BBNJ President Rena Lee: "The ship has reached the shore."
The BBNJ Agreement is agreed. pic.twitter.com/28oIVpFaOt
“Following a two-week-long rollercoaster ride of negotiations and super-hero efforts in the last 48 hours, governments reached agreement on key issues that will advance protection and better management of marine biodiversity in the High Seas,” said Rebecca Hubbard, director of the High Seas Alliance, a coalition of over 40 ocean-focused NGOs that also includes the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Minna Epps, director of the Global Marine and Polar Programme at the IUCN, said the agreement represents a new opportunity.
“The High Seas Treaty opens the path for humankind to finally provide protection to marine life across our one ocean,” Epps said in a statement. “Its adoption closes essential gaps in international law and offers a framework for governments to work together to protect global ocean health, climate resilience, and the socioeconomic wellbeing and food security of billions of people.”
Protecting the world’s high seas, which refers to areas of the oceans outside the jurisdiction of any country, is part of the larger push to protect planetary biodiversity and seen as key if nations want to keep their commitment to the UN-brokered Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework—also known as the known as the 30×30 pledge—that aims protect 30 percent of the world’s natural habitat by 2030.
“With currently just over 1% of the High Seas protected,” said the High Seas Alliance in a statement, “the new Treaty will provide a pathway to establish marine protected areas in these waters.” The group said the treaty will make acheiving the goals of the Kunming-Montreal agreement possible, but that “time is of the essence” for the world’s biodiversity.
“The new Treaty will bring ocean governance into the 21st century,” said the group, “including establishing modern requirements to assess and manage planned human activities that would affect marine life in the High Seas as well as ensuring greater transparency. This will greatly strengthen the effective area-based management of fishing, shipping, and other activities that have contributed to the overall decline in ocean health.”
According to Greenpeace’s assessment of the talks:
The High Ambition Coalition, which includes the EU, US and UK, and China were key players in brokering the deal. Both showed willingness to compromise in the final days of talks, and built coalitions instead of sowing division. Small Island States have shown leadership throughout the process, and the G77 group led the way in ensuring the Treaty can be put into practice in a fair and equitable way.
The fair sharing of monetary benefits from Marine Genetic Resources was a key sticking point. This was only resolved on the final day of talks. The section of the Treaty on Marine Protected Areas does away with broken consensus-based decision making which has failed to protect the oceans through existing regional bodies like the Antarctic Ocean Commission. While there are still major issues in the text, it is a workable Treaty that is a starting point for protecting 30% of the world’s oceans.
The group said it is now urgent for governments around the world to take the final step of ratifying the treaty.
“We can now finally move from talk to real change at sea. Countries must formally adopt the Treaty and ratify it as quickly as possible to bring it into force, and then deliver the fully protected ocean sanctuaries our planet needs,” Meller said. “The clock is still ticking to deliver 30×30. We have half a decade left, and we can’t be complacent.”
Less than two weeks after train cars filled with hazardous chemicals derailed in Ohio and caught fire, a truck carrying nitric acid crashed on a major highway outside Tucson, Arizona, killing the driver and releasing toxic chemicals into the air.
The Arizona hazmat disaster shut down Interstate 10, a major cross-country highway, and forced evacuations in surrounding neighborhoods.
But the highway crash didn’t draw national attention the way the train derailment did, or trigger a flood of calls for more trucking regulation like the U.S. is seeing for train regulation. Truck crashes tend to be local and less dramatic than a pile of derailed train cars on fire, even if they’re deadlier.
In fact, federal data shows that rail has had far fewer incidents, deaths and damage when moving hazardous materials in the U.S. than trucks.
Truck crash. Photo by Stephen Tafra on Unsplash.
Trucks carry more hazmat and more risk
At one time, rail and water were the only options for transporting chemicals and other potentially dangerous materials. The emergence of the automobile and subsequent construction of the interstate highway system changed that, and hazardous materials shipments by road steadily increased.
Today, trucks carry the largest percentage of hazardous materials shipped in the U.S. – about twice as much as trains when measured in ton-miles, according to the Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ latest data, for 2017. A ton-mile is one ton shipped for one mile.
While truck incidents involving hazardous materials don’t look as dramatic as train derailments and are not as widely covered by news media, federal data shows they represent more fatalities and property damage, and there are thousands more of them every year.
Truck-related hazardous materials incidents caused over 16 times more fatalities from 1975 to 2021 – 380 for truck, compared with 23 for rail, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The difference is more pronounced in the last decade, when U.S. rail transportation of hazardous materials caused zero fatalities and truck incidents were responsible for 83.
Trucks have also caused nearly three times as much property damage as rail incidents since 2000. That might seem surprising since derailments can involve several cars with hazardous materials. But most rail events take place in remote areas, limiting their human impact, while trucks travel on highways with other drivers around and often in busy urban areas.
Where do we go from here?
Shipping hazardous materials in the U.S. has been regulated for over 150 years. A deadly explosion in San Francisco in 1866 involving a just-arrived cargo of nitroglycerin, used for blasting rock, led to the first federal laws regulating shipping explosives and flammable materials.
The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks spurred a vast expansion of regulation over movement of hazardous materials. Many cities now have hazardous materials routes for trucks that circumvent city centers to reduce the potential risk to high-population areas.
With the Ohio train derailment now making national news, lawmakers are focusing on regulations specifically for rail.
Ohio’s governor wants rail companies to be required to notify states of all hazardous shipments. This knee-jerk reaction to a major event would appear to be a responsible demand with relatively low costs, but it would have no impact whatsoever on prevention of hazmat events.
Activists are calling for more expensive investments, including requirements for heat sensors on train bearings, which appeared to have been involved in the Ohio derailment, and the restoration of a rule requiring advanced braking systems for trains carrying hazardous materials. Both would raise the cost of rail shipping and could wind up putting more hazardous materials shipments on U.S. roads. The Trump administration repealed the braking system requirement in 2017, arguing that the costs outweighed the benefits.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, speaking with reporters, also discussed looking into new rules for advanced braking systems, as well as higher fines and encouraging rail companies to speed up their phase-in of more puncture-resistant tank cars.
I study rail systems and regulation, and I have followed the increasing costs to the industry to comply with tightening regulatory rules.
Rail is still more economical and better for the environment than trucks for longer distances, but with ever-increasing regulations, rail transport can be economically and logistically discouraged – chasing more traffic to far more dangerous roadways.
If the concern is the public’s exposure to hazardous materials, regulation on road-based hazardous materials transportation should expand as well.
