"Climate protection is just a torturous process"

It hardly gets more annoying: when the IPCC meets, every word is quarreled. Can meaningful climate protection come out? Even so, says researcher Ottmar Edenhofer.

The struggle for more climate protection continues. What would the world community have to do to reach the two-degree goal? Would actually 1.5 degrees already too much? How can you prevent the globe from becoming irresistibly warm soon? When the IPCC meets, it will be bureaucratic, political and diplomatic. Can anything be created at all, what all hold in the end? Ottmar Edenhofer himself was involved in such negotiations. He has explained to us why the exhausting struggle for each paragraph is important.

ZEIT ONLINE: In South Korea at the moment, the IPCC meets with government representatives to vote on the summary of the "Special Report 1.5 degrees". You led such a procedure in 2014 in Berlin. What happens?

Ottmar Edenhofer: Very much. The scientists have prepared a draft. Set by sentence, this summary is projected on the wall. The government representatives then ask, for example, if some things could not be formulated differently, if others had to be considered. And the scientists explain why each aspect is important. Sentence by sentence is gone through this way. If there are no more objections, the chairman takes a hammer, beats everyone audibly on the table and says "Adopted." Then the sentence can no longer be negotiated.

directed. What happens?

Ottmar Edenhofer: Very much. The scientists have prepared a draft. Set by sentence, this summary is projected on the wall. The government representatives then ask, for example, if some things could not be formulated differently, if others had to be considered. And the scientists explain why each aspect is important. Sentence by sentence is gone through this way. If there are no more objections, the chairman takes a hammer, beats everyone audibly on the table and says "Adopted." Then the sentence can no longer be negotiated.

ZEIT ONLINE: Is not that pretty grueling?

Edenhofer: In the first few days you think we will never finish, because at the beginning the delegates get stuck in trivial matters. But that's tactics. The important things are to be negotiated under time pressure, when the nerves are already blank and the sleep deprivation is noticeable. Experienced diplomats know that they can punch through their crucial concerns here. In this situation, the presidents need to prove their nerves, tolerate threats and always remain friendly. If you lose your temper, you have lost. Miraculously, so far, the document has been passed after a week.

ZEIT ONLINE: A procedure by which governments try to smuggle their interests into the document?

Edenhofer: In principle yes - but only in the summary for the decision makers, the actual report remains the work of science. In the chapter on the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC, in which I accompanied the procedure as co-chairman, there was also a so-called technical summary of the 1,450-page report. That was very helpful because we could always say that what you expect from us is not covered by the report. It was very important to me to uphold the scientific integrity of the document. But of course governments are trying to influence.

ZEIT ONLINE: Give us an example?

Edenhofer: There were several graphics depicting historical emissions from different perspectives. Among other things, it showed how much the countries have emitted since industrialization and the relationship between wealth and CO2 emissions: The richer the population of a country became, the more its emissions also increased. Of course, such a graph shows that the developing countries are unfortunately taking the same wrong route as the industrialized countries used to. At that time, however, states like India or China did not want to see it so clearly documented. They have prevailed, so the graphics flew out of the summary for policy makers. Later, however, we made it very visible in the journal, not to the delight of the countries that banished these graphics from decision makers (Science: Dubash et al., 2014).

ZEIT ONLINE: Politics is trying to get a good result from science - is not that absurd?

Edenhofer: Maybe for outsiders, but I always defended the procedure. For governments must take note of the entire report. The I in the abbreviation IPCC is not at the IPCC "International", but for "Intergovernmental". That is the uniqueness of this body.

ZEIT ONLINE: To what extent?

Edenhofer: All governments are involved, must agree with the report and have influence and access to the scientific reports. By implication, that means that not even Saudi Arabia can claim that we have no climate problem. Of course, Saudi Arabia also records the reports. All countries are forced to deal intensively with science, sentence by sentence, that's great. Who wants to change the summary for decision-makers, must have read the report very carefully, otherwise the intervention remains ineffective. And no government can enforce its interests against all others alone!

ZEIT ONLINE: But should such a report not purely based on scientific findings - especially if he serves as a decision-making policy?

Edenhofer: The decision makers are usually not lacking in opinions, they lack a well-founded overview of the possible solutions. Without the Expert Council, politicians often would not even be able to identify the options they have to solve a problem. In this respect, the work of the IPCC is important and correct: the IPCC involves politics and science in a mutual learning process. And climate protection is just a tormenting process because it's about a lot going on. But the goal is worth the pain: in the end, it is about protecting people from risks such as extreme weather, sea-level rise, economic damage, and additional conflicts.