The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases its report on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions
2.31pm BST
The live blog is wrapping up now. You can follow our rolling coverage of the IPPC report on this page.
2.25pm BST
The coverage of the IPCC's report has mostly followed the line that an energy revolution is both necessary and that swift action could be cost effective.
The Daily Mail: The world must shift to solar and wind power rapidly to avoid catastrophic global warming, say UN scientists in major report
@dpcarrington @LeoHickman @GeorgeMonbiot (2/2) Felt like deniers were gaining ground in public opinion. No longer the case. Even DM article!
1.54pm BST
US Secretary of State John Kerry said:
Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy. Denial of the science is malpractice. There are those who say we cant afford to act. But waiting is truly unaffordable. The costs of inaction are catastrophic.
The science shows us that we need substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if we are to limit the risks posed by climate change Potential competitiveness issues, affecting a small number of very energy intensive industries, can be handled. We should stop wringing our hands and just get on with it.
The transition to sustainable low-carbon economic development and growth is an opportunity not just to avoid potentially catastrophic climate risks, but also to reap other benefits from cleaner and more efficient technologies, such as reductions in local air pollution. If we embark on such a transition, we are likely to discover new technologies and ways of organising production, consumption and cities that would bring costs down radically.
How can we expect poor countries to join in the battle against climate change unless we accept that we owe our wealth partly to pollution
At the UN summit in September, world leaders can agree the basis for a global climate deal which signals a serious, long-term commitment to a climate framework which supports low-carbon investment. Acting now to put the world on a low-carbon growth path is achievable, economically beneficial, and will help economies avoid the substantial adaptation costs and large uncertainties faced in the event of severe climate change.
1.48pm BST
The World Resources Institute has released a handy analysis of today's report: 6 Things You Need to Know About Reducing Emissions. I'll list the headlines here but they have more detail on their site.
1) Without Explicit Action, We Could See More than 4°C of Warming.
1.43pm BST
UK energy secretary Ed Davey has released a statement.
The risk is too great to stop here. We need a worldwide, large-scale change to our energy system if we are to limit the effects of climate change.
I call for international leaders to work together with enforced vigour to reduce carbon emissions and secure an ambitious legally binding global agreement in 2015.
1.38pm BST
The Prince of Waless Corporate Leaders Group, a coalition of companies, including Acciona, Coca-Cola Enterprises, EDF Energy, Shell, Tesco and Unilever, said today the report was welcomed by the corporate community:
"This latest report from the IPCC is the one that many businesses have been waiting most eagerly to read here is the latest scientific analysis of the solutions that we can employ to limit the stock of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the consequent climate change. The report contains some stark home truths about the scale of the challenge and the progress were making to date. Rather than slowing and declining, greenhouse gas emissions are rising at a faster rate than ever before and no country has plans in place that are sufficient to keep warming below the globally agreed limit of 2°C.
Many leading businesses are well aware of the need for a collective wake up call. The Trillion Tonne Communiqué, already signed by over 90 companies from 5 continents, and with fast-growing support, calls for an increase in the pace and scale of action. Specifically, the signatories urge policy makers to take a number of significant actions in line with the science of the IPCC, including setting a timeline for phasing out greenhouse gas emissions before the end of the century, designing a credible strategy to transform the energy system, and creating a plan to manage reliance on fossil fuels, especially coal.
1.35pm BST
PricewaterhouseCoopers have released an analysis of the report.
Dr Celine Herweijer, partner on sustainability and climate change, said the "Working Group 3 report on mitigation explains how to avoid the crash. But it also suggests that the brakes are not working".
"Fundamentally, the latest IPCC reports show that not only are the costs to act affordable if we do so early, but that we all lose if we fail to respond adequately. Uncertainties due to a handful of nascent economic models are not excuses for inaction. Policy-makers and business leaders have a mandate to act under the weight of the evidence at hand. This evidence suggests urgent and bold action is a must at the national and international level.
The IPCC has provided some estimates on the global scale of the costs, both for reducing emissions (WG3) and for the impacts of climate change (WG2). Unfortunately they cannot be compared and used as a decision to act. What is certain is that the costs to act only become more expensive the longer we wait."
"There is a pre-conception that carbon regulations impose undue costs on industry. But across all sectors, businesses are often faced with all sorts of regulations so carbon regulation is not exceptional. Indeed, for some companies and industries, particularly those with medium energy intensities, carbon costs are considered relatively immaterial compared to other costs, but a price signal can still drive tangible carbon reduction actions. The important thing for businesses is to have transparency, clarity and fairness in the costs they face."
"Delayed action on climate change and reducing our emissions tends to involve a substantially more difficult pathway from 2030 onwards, or have a larger reliance on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies which are today in their infancy (i.e. bioenergy with CCS or even geoengineering). PwCs Low Carbon Economy Index(LCEI) estimated that we could limit emissions to around 30 GtCO2e by 2030 through reducing carbon intensity by 6% a year, every year. This has never been achieved globally and even in 2012 our analysis questioned the viability of the 2 degree target without a radical economic and policy transformation."
"A key message from the IPCC is that energy efficiency improvements and the switch from coal to gas would not be sufficient to deliver the scale of changes required. Indeed, our LCEI analysis shows that globally, almost all of the recent changes in carbon intensity can be attributed to improvements in energy efficiency, suggesting that other measures are yet to be adopted more widely. Nevertheless progress is still visible particularly for renewable energy, and more technologies are approaching technical and economic maturity to be deployed at scale. The challenge is about the rate of that deployment. Three G20 countries achieved more than 25% growth in renewable energy consumption in 2012, another 10 countries achieved between 10% and 25% growth."
1.21pm BST
Damian Carrington, the Guardian's head of environment, has sent this dispatch from Berlin, where the mood sounds positively jovial - a sharp contrast to the usual feeling of impending armageddon that has accompanied AR5's previous installments.
Behind the scenes most of the IPCC people I have spoken too are pretty positive about the report and the final summary. As ever, politics intervened in the final draft with, for example, a line stating that 70% of carbon emissions comes from just 10 big countries being deleted.
Any hint of attributing blame for climate change is intensely sensitive, because the international negotiations to tackle the problem will ultimately have to decide who will cut emissions, by how much and who will pay. The IPCC people say they have set out the choices and now the politicians will have to make the choices about fairness.
1.19pm BST
The Science Media Centre has put together a wrap of the reaction from climate scientists and those working in the mitigation field.
Dr Dan Osborn, independent consultant and former chair of the evaluation panel for the AVOID research programme, said:
"This report illustrates the challenges the world faces on mitigation but it could be good news for those businesses and countries willing to lead the way on all kinds of low-carbon technologies. Burning oil and gas will be frowned on by future generations because this resource is valuable for other purposes. The sooner we start on mitigation the lower adaptation costs will be. Relying on a non-existent Plan B is not a wise option. Time to act is limited. The world must not put its head in the sand. Global action is needed to reduce emissions whilst there is still time."
The WG3 SPM highlights a number of key issues: Firstly, where we are in terms of mitigation and where we need to be (to have a good chance of respecting the 2C limit) are still a long way apart. The changes needed to bridge the gap include transformative, non-incremental changes, particularly of the energy system and behaviour in areas such as energy efficiency, modes of mobility, and potentially diet changes. Such transformative changes remain eminently possible, but concerted action is needed."
Behaviour change and economic instruments will be as important as technological innovation; all should be viewed as opportunities rather than threats. Action must be swift, decisive and above all global. The report leaves no doubt that we really are in the last chance saloon as far as addressing climate change is concerned.
In approaches to climate change mitigation the report espouses high ideals to which we can all agree, and that no policymaker would dare deny. However, these ideals are far from achieved in todays business-as-usual operations. The danger here is that we will be, and as evidenced by much legislation around biofuels and bioenergy between AR4 and AR5, holding new mitigation options to higher standards than business-as-usual. Such statements also encourage development of policies around imagined rather than proven issues. The result is obvious, maintain business-as-usual it is so much easier.
The section on Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) clearly failed to see the elephant in the room. Output of primary foodstuffs such as grain and seed needs to increase 70% by 2050 to keep pace with demand. We are failing to increase yields per unit land area to achieve this goal. If we do not address this problem first, then the result is obvious: we will spill over on to less productive and less sustainable land which will prevent or even reverse other mitigation options of afforestation, bioenergy, and soil improvement."
In the light of this enthusiastic IPCC endorsement [of renewables], it is disappointing that the European Commissions recent policy proposals for growth in renewables are unambitious and unspecific. Post-2020, the EU will abandon its existing country-specific renewable targets, aiming instead for a modest Europe-wide target of 27% of energy from renewables by 2030. So instead of setting a leading example to the world by moving rapidly towards a low carbon future, the developed nations of Europe are in danger of falling well short of the IPCCs latest standards.
It is useful to see so many experts agree that the electricity sector can be completely decarbonised as a major contribution to keeping global warming below unacceptable danger levels, but many of us on the front lines of renewable energy would say that the IPCC has underestimated the speed with which our technologies, in concert with energy efficiency, can displace fossil fuels in the years ahead.
Similarly, growing numbers of financial analysts would say that the IPCC has given inadequate consideration to the soaring capital expenditures of carbon-fuel companies, and the extent to which that constraint can help drive capital to the declining-cost technologies that dominate the renewables family.
The report states, Cutting emissions from electricity production to near zero is a common feature of ambitious mitigation scenarios. But using energy efficiently is also important. What is intriguing is that the energy efficiency argument is often the second point, perhaps the after-thought. The world of energy is a set of scales - demand and supply. It is obvious that by cutting demand, or at least stemming the growth in demand, the issue of how to supply CO2 friendly power is made easier."
"Agriculture and forestry are responsible for about a quarter of all GHG emissions and there is significant scope to reduce this. Perhaps the most important route is via reducing deforestation which is occurring widely for production of palm oil and soy and increasing afforestation.
Farming can become more climate smart by, for example, increasing carbon storage in soils and this may have a range of other benefits for sustainability and resilience. Changing our diets, especially eating less meat, may have significant impacts, as will reducing our wastage of food."
"This WG3 report draws attention to a range of methods for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, including afforestation, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and other means for removing CO2 from the atmosphere (CDR). It is good to see these methods analysed alongside policy measures to change the energy supply mix, since the former may have value in the future in a broad policy portfolio. The SPM makes no mention of unwelcome and risky technologies to reduce incoming sunlight through solar climate engineering - and this is a good thing. Such solar radiation management (SRM) technologies offer only chimerical solutions to the inadequate policy goal of limiting global warming to no more than 2 deg Celsius."
1.00pm BST
The IPCC has launched its press release:
Climate policies in line with the two degrees Celsius goal need to aim for substantial emission reductions, working group III co-chair Ottmar Edenhofer said. There is a clear message from science: To avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we need to move away from business as usual.
12.57pm BST
The IPCC report says divesment from fossil fuels is one path for reducing their consumption.
In an article for the Guardian last week, Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote:
"We live in a world dominated by greed. We have allowed the interests of capital to outweigh the interests of human beings and our Earth. It is clear [the companies] are not simply going to give up; they stand to make too much money."
"People of conscience need to break their ties with corporations financing the injustice of climate change. We can, for instance, boycott events, sports teams and media programming sponsored by fossil-fuel energy companies."
The report makes it clear that in order to meet their agreed goal of keeping global warming below 2°C, governments need to get serious about leaving fossil fuels in the ground. That means stopping carbon-intensive infrastructure projects, like the Keystone XL pipeline, and shifting investments out of the fossil fuel industry and into solutions.
Investors now have scientific evidence that if you put your money into fossil fuels you are complicit in wrecking our future. We know that 80% of fossil fuels need to stay underground in order to avoid a climate catastrophe. The fossil fuel industry however is spending billions every year to find yet new reserves, spread misinformation about climate change, corrupt political progress and block clean energy solutions. ExxonMobil, for example, recently spelled out that they are determined to burn through all the carbon they have and can get hold of.
12.35pm BST
EU commissioner Connie Hedegaard said:
''The report is clear: there really is no plan B for climate change. There is only plan A: collective action to reduce emissions now. And since we need first movers to set a plan into motion, we in Europe will adopt an ambitious 2030 target later this year. Now the question is: when will YOU, the big emitters, do the same? The more you wait, the more it will cost. The more you wait, the more difficult it will become.''
12.34pm BST
Meanwhile, in the UK, energy secretary Ed Davey has told Sky News:
The UN climate change report is a stark warning that the world is "looking down the precipice".
Global energy change vital to cut emissions. UK doubled renewable power since 2010: huge low carbon investment on way #IPCC #climatechange
12.32pm BST
World leaders are declining to comment directly, passing the honour to their energy or science advisors. Assistant to the US president for science and technology John P. Holdren said:
The facts are clearthe more we and other countries do to curb climate change and prepare for the climate-change impacts that can no longer be avoided, the less suffering will be inflicted on our communities and on our children and grandchildren.
The IPCC's new report highlights in stark reality the magnitude and urgency of the climate challenge. It shows, even more compellingly than previous studies, that the longer society waits to implement strong measures to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, the more costly and difficult it will become to limit climate change to less than catastrophic levels.
"The newest IPCC report shows a wide range of options to cut carbon pollution, including the use cost-effective clean energy. The longer we wait to act, the harder and more expensive it will be.
12.19pm BST
During the press conference, Damian Carrington asked co-chair Edenhofer about shale gas' role in the future of energy production.
#ipcc's Edenhofer: as a bridging tech shale #gas might work but in the end fossil fuels without CCS must be phased out in next few decades
12.14pm BST
Last-minute objections from rich countries scrapped a proposed section, which called for hundreds of billions of dollars every year to be paid to developing countries by developed countries, says the Guardian's Damian Carrington. This funding would have helped countries to develop their cities and economies without massive increases in carbon emissions.
Chukwumerije Okereke, an author on the report told the BBC this was a result of the "marginalisation" of developing country views in the IPCC process. He said that poorer nations were underrepresented on the panel. Around 30% of authors for the report came from the developing world.
"The argument has been shifting away from the view that the developed countries, who have been mainly responsible for the problem, should take leadership in solving it, to this centre-ground view that we are all in it together and we all have to do our share.
"In effect, this is shifting the burden onto the developing countries and is holding them down from developing; quite frankly this is reinforcing historical patterns of injustice and domination."
"Emissions are rising fastest in emerging economies and in the interest of their poorest citizens on the front line of climate change, they must play a bigger role than in the past. But rich countries cannot simply pass the buck - they must do their fair share by both slashing their emissions faster and finally providing the financial support for climate action in poor countries they have promised."
"If we fail to act on climate change, the chance of eradicating hunger from our world may be lost forever. This report shows cutting emissions sufficiently comes at little cost, so we have no excuse for letting that happen.
"The worlds poorest nations are in need of economic development. But they need to be helped to leapfrog dirty energy and develop in a way which wont entrench their poverty by making climate change worse. With technological and financial help they can harness their natural, clean, energy resources and improve the lives of millions."
12.14pm BST
Carbon capture and storage is on of the more divisive aspects of today's report and generated some discussion in the last week because the leaked final draft contained the lines:
"Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies could reduce the life-cycle GHG emissions of fossil power plants (medium evidence, medium agreement)."
"Combining bioenergy and CCS (BECCS) could result in net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (limited evidence, medium agreement)."
"The technology is the dangerous spawn of two very bad ideas: it brings together the false premises and injustices of the bio-energy debacle with the risky, costly and unproven notion that we can bury carbon dioxide out of sight. That hardly seems a hopeful formula for calming the climate crisis. Such techno-fix fantasies will be welcomed by oil companies because they distract attention from the obvious solution of cutting fossil fuel use."
"Such transformative changes remain eminently possible, but concerted action is needed. In particular, BECCS (bio-energy with carbon capture and storage) is a critical component of most strong mitigation scenarios, allowing negative effective emissions, but is still not demonstrated at large scale."
Extraction and combustion of fossil carbon can only continue if that easy energy is matched, tonne for tonne, by the recapture and storage of carbon. It doesn't matter if that is by Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), by Bio Energy Capture and Storage (BECCS), by direct air capture, or by enhanced mineral weathering all of these will be needed."
"The scientists of the IPCC have produced an excellent overview of the importance of developing and deploying a broad range of low carbon technologies. The UK has well-advanced plans to accelerate the deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of its wide-ranging reforms of the UK electricity market. This report confirms that this support is timely and has an important role to play in global CO2 emissions mitigation efforts.
"The increased emphasis given to the likely role of 'negative' emissions technologies that draw CO2 from the atmosphere is important. They could be essential to allow climate change mitigation to be delivered in ways that are acceptable to society. Some technologies are available today, but there is scope for improvement and also scientific breakthroughs in this area. Members of the UK CCS Research Centre are among the scientists currently working hard to ensure that priority technologies and effective strategies for using them are rapidly developed and implemented."
11.58am BST
Transport Environment says the IPCC confirmed today that transport will become the largest source of CO2 emissions by 2050 in a business-as-usual scenario, making it a key area for policy considerations. Transport accounted for 27% of final energy use in 2010 and could double by 2050 due to demand growth in emerging economies.
A TE spokesperson said:
Thanks to EU regulations CO2 emissions from new cars are now falling, but the progress on trucks and vans is glacial. The IPCC report stresses the urgency of taking new initiatives to tackle vehicle emissions, but the European Commissions response is to repeatedly delay promised strategies to regulate car and van emissions after 2020 and to start addressing soaring emissions from trucks.
11.48am BST
This report is being heralded as vindication for many green groups because the UN panel has found that the renewable agenda supported almost unequivocally by the environment movement is the road to climate redemption. They are queuing up to ram home the message.
Kaisa Kosonen, senior political advisor for Greenpeace International, said:
Renewable energy is unstoppable. Its becoming bigger, better and cheaper every day. Dirty energy industries are sure to put up a fight but its only a question of time before public pressure and economics dictate that they either change or go out of business. The 21st century will be the age of renewables.
The IPCC report makes clear that acting on emissions now is affordable, but delaying further increases the costs. The energy sector is by far the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and, therefore, is the key battleground of change.
We know more effort is needed, and quickly. Delaying new mitigation efforts will make it much harder to transition the worlds energy systems to a sustainable, equitable and low-emissions future."
Bold international action to cut our use of fossil fuels is urgently required to steer the planet away from catastrophic climate change.
If were to avoid levels of climate change that will be impossible to adapt to, governments must stand up to the fossil fuel industry and plug in to the huge potential of clean renewable power.
China could break the deadlock in UN climate talks by presenting an ambitious new target with binding emission cuts. If China leads, the US and the EU will have no excuse for not being more progressive. The test of whether governments are willing to act on the IPCCs findings or turn their backs on public concern will come during next years climate treaty talks in Paris.
Germanys energy revolution is a practical reality and an example to the world. Clean energy owns the future. Politicians and investors need to catch up.
We have the toolsnow we need to use them. The report shows that by phasing out fossil fuels and significantly ramping up investments in renewable energy, we can reduce climate risks. At the same time, these actions would deliver benefits like cleaner air, new jobs, and more reliable domestic energy sources.
World leaders can take decisive actions, like limiting power plant emissions in the United States to capping coal use in China. In the lead up to the UN climate summit in September, government officials can announce concrete steps to shape a low-carbon future. Governments can deliver strong commitments that will lead to an ambitious, universal climate agreement by 2015."
11.43am BST
As reaction begins to flow in, the Guardian's reporters have already published a series of articles analysing various aspects of the report.
Damian Carrington says: IPCC climate change report: averting catastrophe is eminently affordable
Catastrophic climate change can be averted without sacrificing living standards, according to a landmark UN report published on Sunday. It concludes the transformation required to a world of clean energy and the ditching of dirty fossil fuels is eminently affordable.
David Cameron's commitment to the green agenda will come under the fiercest scrutiny yet this week when top climate-change experts will warn that only greater use of renewable energy including windfarms can prevent a global catastrophe.
It is already taking shape as the 21st century urban nightmare: a big storm hits a city like Shanghai, Mumbai, Miami or New York, knocking out power supply and waste treatment plants, washing out entire neighbourhoods and marooning the survivors in a toxic and foul-smelling swamp.
Now the world's leading scientists are suggesting that those same cities in harm's way could help drive solutions to climate change.
11.36am BST
11.29am BST
AP reporter Karl Ritter has done some number crunching from the report on the key issue of past and present responsibility for emissions. This will be a major factor in discussions between nations at the UN climate confernce in Paris in 2015, which will seek to establish who's responsibility it will be to pay for the transition to a low carbon world.
At the time of the IPCC's previous climate assessment, in 2007, the U.S. was the world's top carbon polluter. It has since been overtaken by China, which now accounts for one-quarter of global emissions because of its rapidly expanding economy. The U.S. is No. 2 with 17 percent, followed by India (6.6 percent), Russia (5.1 percent) and Japan (3.7 percent).
11.24am BST
The press conference has now ended but stay with us as we gather reaction from climate scientists, policy makers and the media.
Pachauri was asked twice which areas of contention lead to materials being left out of the 29 page summary for policy makers published today. Twice he has dodged the question. But Damian Carrington said today:
Objections from rich nations saw the complete removal of a section stating that hundred of billions of dollars a year would have to be paid by developed countries to developing countries, to ensure they grow their cities and economies in a non-polluting way.
Other objections, from major fossil fuel producing nations including Saudi Arabia, led to the weakening of statements that ending the huge subsidies paid for oil, gas and coal would help reduce emissions. But the final document retained the conclusion that policies to cut carbon could devalue fossil fuels reserves.
11.20am BST
Edenhofer is asked which scenarios required a carbon price.
"The carbon price was not an assumption, it was a result of some of the scenarios." Meaning some of the scenarios required a carbon price to achieve their results.
11.15am BST
Edenhofer is asked why the report avoided recommending particular reductions for particular countries.
He says the IPCC felt it would be inappropriate to prescribe specific allocations to countries because the goals can be achieved under many different burden sharing scenarios. He said it would be up to countries to find the most effective and just way to achieve emissions reductions.
11.10am BST
Edenhofer: "The IPCC has not said that carbon capture and storage is without cost and without uncertainties - such as uncertainties over the global storage capacity."
You can get you copy of the report here.
11.00am BST
There is a question on the main points of contention. Pachauri says it saying the strength of the IPCC process comes from the interaction between the policy and scientific communities.
Damian Carrington from the Guardian asks about the 0.06% cost mentioned in the report - is it affordable?
10.58am BST
#IPCC WG3 shows fighting #climatechange is possible, if #Paris2015 used to make world carbon neutral http://t.co/jsw3SV49Zv
10.44am BST
Edenhofer is asked by the BBC what his major message is and why we should feel hopeful.
"My first message is, emissions are still increasing and they are increaing with an increasing growth rate."
10.37am BST
Edenhofer says: "We need a new investment flow in particular sectors. In particular energy, renewables and in some parts of the world, nuclear."
This is a global commons problem, he says: "Effective mitigation will not be achieved if individual agents, countries, firms, individuals, advance their interests independently of others."
10.31am BST
Edenhofer says the business-as-usual scenario will lead to 3.7C to 4.8C rise in temperature before 2100.
If we are to stay within 2C," we need to bring the mitigation train on track". This would involve a fundamental upscale of low and zero carbon emission energy sources. It would also strongly depend on the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.
10.22am BST
235 authors from 58 coutries have contributed to the report says co-chair Ramon Pichs-Madruga.
Co-chair Ottmar Edenhofer is presenting the report's key findings.
10.15am BST
The Guardian's head of environment, Damian Carrington, is in Berlin covering the conference. He says the IPCC has concluded that "catastrophic climate change can be averted without sacrificing living standards".
The authoritative report, produced by 1250 international experts and approved by 194 governments, dismisses fears that slashing carbon emissions would wreck the world economy. It is the final part of a trilogy that has already shown that climate change is unequivocally caused by humans and that, unchecked, it poses a grave threat to people and could lead to lead to wars and mass migration.
Diverting hundred of billions of dollars from fossil fuels into renewable energy and cutting energy waste would shave just 0.06% off expected annual economic growth rates of 1.3%-3%, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report concluded.
10.15am BST
Youba Sokona, co-chair of working group III says the report is a roadmap "designed to safely navigate through shallow water and above steep cliffs".
He says the report provides a detailed comprehensive map of the future and is therefore highly important as a basis for policy making.
10.12am BST
The press conference begins with the opening statement from chairman of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra K Pachauri.
He says effective mitigiation will not be achieved if the world acts independently. The global response "requires an unprecedented level of international coopeoration".
9.51am BST
While we are waiting for the flood of news reports, commentary and the press conference itself, here are some key quotes from a leaked version of the report's final draft.
"The upward trend in global fossil fuel related CO2 emissions is robust across databases and despite uncertainties (high confidence)."
Fossil fuels contribute 65.2% of GHG emissions, which continue to grow says leaked UN report. Image: IPCC pic.twitter.com/pUZ4Fy6cJB
Economic and population growth continue to be the two main drivers for increases in global fossil fuel CO2 emissions over 2000-2010, outpacing the decline in energy intensity
Without explicit efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the fundamental drivers of emissions growth are expected to persist despite major improvements in energy supply and end-use technologies
9.47am BST
The Guardian's Damian Carrington is at the press conference in Berlin. If you'd like to watch it, it is will be streamed on the IPCC's site at 11am local time.
#ipcc #climate report: press conference setting up here in Berlin pic.twitter.com/4mo9YqMDXQ
9.43am BST
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the UN organ charged with providing assessment on climate change. It was established in 1988 "to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts", its website says.
9.29am BST
Hello and welcome to our coverage of the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) roadmap for avoiding catastrophic global warming.
The report, produced by hundreds of experts and backed by almost 200 world governments, will detail the dramatic transformation required of the entire globe's power system, including ending centuries of coal, oil and gas supremacy.
Currently fossil fuels provide more than 80% of all energy but the urgent need to cut planet-warming carbon emissions means this must fall to as little as a third of present levels in coming decades, according to a leaked draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report seen by the Guardian.
Continue reading...