As most CA readers know by now, the following widely-disseminated lead statement to the IPCC press release announcing the Renewables Report was untrue.

Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.

On June 16, Mark Lynas asked four sensible questions about how IPCC came to make the untrue statement as follows:

Dear Dr Edenhofer, I would also like to have a look at the archive of review comments, as requested by Steve McIntyre earlier. In addition I would ask for a response to the following questions, to which I will happily post your reponses online for clarification: 1. what was the process for writing the press release, and who decided whether it faithfully represented the main conclusions of the SPM/main report?

2. why was the SPM released more than a month before the full report?

3. was Sven Teske in any way involved in the decision to highlight Teske et al, 2010 as one of the four ‘illustrative scenarios’ explored in greater depth as per Section 10.3.1?

4. what is the IPCC conflict of interest policy with regard to lead authors reviewing their own work, and having affiliations to non-academic institutions, whether campaign groups or companies? I will post a note on my blog informing that these questions are with you and awaiting a response. Many thanks for your attention on this. Mark

Later on June 16, Andy Revkin endorsed Lynas’ request and asked to be copied on any response. On June 17, Oliver Morton of the Economist added himself to the group asking about the press release.

May I add myself to the group asking for an account of how the press release was drafted, and who was involved?

While Edenhofer copied both Lynas and me on his two emails, he conspicuously did not address either Lynas or me. Yesterday, as reported here by Mark Lynas, IPCC WG3 chair Ottmar Edenhofer replied to Morton as follows:

Dear Oliver, As I have written to Andrew Revkin, the press release was drafted by the WGIII and the Secretariat. Nick Nutall, spokesperson of the United Nations Environment Programme was acting IPCC spokesperson at the time of the Abu Dhabi meeting, because this position was vacant. He has drafted the first version, which was then reviewed by the Secretariat, the WGIII co-chairs, and the WGIII TSU. Sven Teske was not involved in the process of writing the press release. It was based on the SPM but supplemented from the underlying chapters, for example with the numbers that describe the upper and the lower one of the four scenarios that have been analyzed in-depth: “Over 160 [164] existing scientific scenarios on the possible penetration of renewables by 2050, alongside environmental and social implications, have been reviewed with four analyzed in-depth. These four were chosen in order to represent the full range. […] The most optimistic of the four, in-depth scenarios projects renewable energy accounting for as much as 77 percent of the world‘s energy demand by 2050, amounting to about 314 of 407 Exajoules per year. […] 77 percent is up from just under 13 percent of the total primary energy supply of around 490 Exajoules in 2008. Each of the scenarios is underpinned by a range of variables such as changes in energy efficiency, population growth and per capita consumption. These lead to varying levels of total primary energy supply in 2050, with the lowest of the four scenarios seeing renewable energy accounting for a share of 15 percent in 2050, based on a total primary energy supply of 749 Exajoules.” Best regards, Ottmar

As too often in climate science, you have to watch the pea under the thimble. The statement at issue is the lead statement that ‘Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.’

Instead of squarely addressing the claim at issue, Edenhofer quotes a paragraph buried in the press release that wasn’t at issue.

So we know a little bit more about the process. The press release was drafted first by Nick Nutall of UNEP and the press release with the opening false statement was ‘reviewed” – and presumably signed off – by the IPCC Secretariat, WG3 co-chairs (including Edenhofer) and the WG3 TSU, with Teske apparently not being involved. Teske was, however, very fast off the mark, to say the least, as he issued a press release from Abu Dhabi on May 9 that couldn’t have postdated the IPCC press release by very long.

They say that ‘it was based on the SPM but supplemented from the underlying chapters’. However, I, for one, cannot find support for the claim that ‘close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.’ I’ve requested a reference from Edenhofer, thus far without success.

Thus, in respect to Lynas’ questions:

1. what was the process for writing the press release, and who decided whether it faithfully represented the main conclusions of the SPM/main report?

see immediately preceding comments. It seems to have been the WG3 chairs and secretariat

2. why was the SPM released more than a month before the full report?

No answer.

3. was Sven Teske in any way involved in the decision to highlight Teske et al, 2010 as one of the four ‘illustrative scenarios’ explored in greater depth as per Section 10.3.1?

No answer.

4. what is the IPCC conflict of interest policy with regard to lead authors reviewing their own work, and having affiliations to non-academic institutions, whether campaign groups or companies?

No answer – other than Pachauri’s statement to Oliver Morton that AR5 authors are not obliged to comply with recently passed IPCC conflict of interest policies.



