Sustainability Consulting services "Your solutions are scalable and have the potential to have a huge impact on the climate" Jennifer M, CEO

Sustainability executive training services Your workshops on sustainability were exceptional and very informative. I have learned a lot, and I thank you for that. Paschasie G., Financial director

L'invitée du jour est le docteur Audrey-Flore Ngomsik. Mon invitée est docteur en chimie pour la version courte. La version longue étant très longue, cet épisode sera l'occasion de découvrir ses multiples casquettes. Le fil conducteur de ses actions reste néanmoins #sustainability #diversity #profit #greenbusiness. Audrey aborde ces sujets d'un point de vue unique et novateur. J'ai pris un plaisir immense à enregistrer cet épisode, et à compléter le puzzle 'Dr Audrey'. En effet après avoir assisté à plusieurs de ses events (The Nine, Brussels Binder) je n'arrivais toujours pas à cerner le personnage. C'est désormais chose faite grâce à sa générosité lors de notre échange. Un échange riche en enseignement, visionnaire. Bonne écoute !

Fighting the under-representation of women in the EU Bubble As the president of the Brussels Binder, Dr Audrey-Flore Ngomsik was interviewed by the MEP assistant. 🔴"The European Union is trying to become a global leader in gender equality. But shouldn’t its institutions look inward, into their own functioning and at women's representation to ensure the implementation of egalitarian policies?" 🟢The Brussels Binder did, and has implemented change. Its strategy, its volunteers, its initiatives... ⚠️ And gender is not enough! #Equality means to go beyond gender, this is why one of the core values of the Brussels Binder is #intersectionality. ❓𝗪𝗵𝘆𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗮𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗼𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻#𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀? ❓𝗪𝗵𝘆𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘄𝗮𝘆𝗼𝗳𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗼𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲#𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗹𝘀𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲? ❓𝗪𝗵𝘆𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗮𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗳𝗮𝗻𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗻? The answer is 🅱🅸🅰🆂🅴🆂, this is why 🅴🅳🆄🅲🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽 is so important! To be able to debate, to see every angle, to be able to draft inclusive policies you need to have a broader diversity of expertise on a problem. This is the only way to vote laws that include everyone. To conclude, #intersectionality is not about individuality. It is about having #systemicchange in life, #workplace, #studies. It is about having #systemichange in a place that privilege only one type of person.

Dreams can be mirrors into one’s soul, expressions of one’s supreme aspirations, safe spaces to confront one’s deep-seated fears, breeding grounds for creative solutions to problems or the sprouts of tomorrow’s reality. As such, dreams are essential at times of tearing down and building anew, like the ones in which we live. When the status quo ante no longer exists and will not return. When our sense of security is threatened, and our democratic values are challenged. When existing principles, instruments, and approaches feel like an increasingly straitjacket and the need for fundamental reform has become imperative for the EU to adapt and thrive. What do women dare to imagine for the future of European democracy at this watershed moment (Zeitenwende)? To commemorate International Women’s Day, I posed this question to female colleagues. My goal was not to have female authors escape the current situation in a fantasy world but rather to encourage them to freely imagine what European democracy should become, irrespective of the present. My call received 36 contributions authored by women from various EU member states but also the Balkan countries, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Georgia, and Turkey. To help orient the reader, these have been grouped under three different headings that capture the substance of their message: one includes all entries on the general development of the EU, another brings together all reflections on the evolution of European democracy, and the third contains all pieces linked to women’s rights and participation in political affairs. Under each heading, the texts are ordered alphabetically. All entries testify to the power of dreams to speak truth and ambition. They also reveal the capacity of women to dream big, long term, inclusively, empathetically, and passionately. They highlight the most important problems facing the EU and come up with concrete ways to solve them. Many participants already pioneer or implement in their work the ideas they put forward. Just like their counterparts, the female authors who took part in this exercise are mothers, daughters, grandmas, wives, single ladies, successful and established leaders and opinion-shapers in their fields or at the start of their careers. They have various educational backgrounds, nationalities, life experiences, and ages. But like all women, they are so much more. The strong, clear, and courageous voices that come through their entries to this compendium offer a stark reminder that women’s contribution to the future of our European democratic societies and to our Union is as unique, resourceful, and boundless as it is indispensable. How do your own dreams compare to theirs? Keep reading to find out… The full publication is available here. The text au Dr Audrey-Flore Ngomsik is available page 8 and below.

Sustainability executive training services I watched Dr. Ngomsik speak at the Department for International Trade’s (DIT) event for Belgian and UK companies from diverse and minority backgrounds and at another event titled "Why startup-fundraising is one of the most tangible (gender and race) diversity gaps". During both events, Dr. Ngomsik's knowledge, expertise, and ability to communicate complex ideas into easily understandable anecdotes and examples were on full display. ​An obviously talented speaker, I recommend Dr. Ngomsik for any and all events on sustainability, leadership, and innovation. Tino C, Investor

Premier épisode de Rising Voices avec Dr. Audrey-Flore Ngomsik A travers cette émission, nous allons mettre en avant les histoires inspirantes de fondateurs et fondatrices qui ont surmonté des obstacles pour créer des entreprises prospères. Rising Voices cherche à offrir une plateforme aux entrepreneurs sous-représentés pour partager leurs histoires et leurs expériences, offrir des conseils, et inspirer d'autres minorités à poursuivre leurs rêves dans l’entrepreneuriat. Dr. Audrey-Flore Ngomsik est Docteur en chimie physique et analytique, PDG et co-fondatrice de Trianon Scientific Communication, elle est experte en Responsabilité Sociale des entreprises, en développement durable et est présidente du Brussels Binder, une ONG bruxelloise, qui milite pour augmenter la diversité dans les débats publiques.

Colliding Epistemes Colliding Epistemes explores the ramifications of putting creative perspectives and scientific competence into close contact, focusing on the friction that results from the clash of disciplines, approaches, and mindsets. This exposition shows, among other things, the results of a collaboration of Dr. Audrey-Flore Ngomsik and the collective of artists 3137 within the European Studiotopia program. The Studiotopia program STUDIOTOPIA is a creative journey through Europe that addresses sustainable development via the convergence of art and science. This program intends to strengthen partnerships between cultural and research organizations, universities, innovation centres, creatives, and European citizens. For 18 months, I have been one of the thirteen scientists in residence of the Studiotopia program. I have collaborated with the collective of artists 3137. Our project Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture. How this land is managed has a direct impact on the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, on how biodiversity is preserved (or not), and on the kind of diet people have access to. By making great strides in productivity, the industrial food system has managed to meet the demands of a growing global population (more or less). However, this approach to food production, and the management of food by-products, is endangering biodiversity and human health. It has become clear that this food system is no longer fit for the 21st century and that a new model is required. The project focuses on how the concept of the Circular Economy could contribute to a more sustainable food system and contribute to a healthier daily nutrition. The project has been developed around the notions of collaboration, sustainability and consumption towards climate action and change, that respond to the following SDG goals: It will show the three main problems of the industrial food system: - Environmental degradation (water, soil, CO2 emissions, etc.) - Generation of waste - Poor outcomes Our goal is to re-imagine our everyday eating habits changing towards a sustainable planet and to become aware of our ecological footprint. We want to look for existing sustainable/circular systems and create new stories that will help us all change the way we consume. Stories that narrate not only what should be learnt, but also speculate on the future of the food industry and even more on the future of our everyday life. During the course of the project, the following questions have arisen: The Outcome of the project Click on the button below to read about the outcome of the project: Putting creative perspective in contact with science Interview of Dr. Audrey-Flore Ngomsik In your residency you have entered the world and research field of an artist. How did this experience change your view in general, and particularly of your own research? A part of my work is to teach people about climate change, debunk misinformation they receive in the news, and engage them. I have participated in the residency to emphasise this. The use of art as a channel for communication, will help me engage other artists with the topic and translate the science in an interactive and (dare I say it?) ‘fun’ way. For me, art and science are very complementary, and the residency taught me that when put together they have a ripple effect to induce change by helping to communicate science to the general public. Art and science collide to make the perfect environment for change. The scientist is the brain, and the artist is the heart. In the world of arts, work is communicating to a wider audience compared to most science. Also the work itself may be produced with the help of citizens, or experts of wide variety. Did your residency showcase this and or made you aware of this? Did it change your view of the role of a scientist as a citizen and community member? I am not sure, that I agree with your first statement. Modern art in particular only speaks to a very select audience. The average “citizen” looks at modern art, shakes his or her head and trundles on. Over the last 1½ or so years, the number of scientists appearing in the media has increased sharply. Not an enviable position for someone generally used to talk to peers, especially considering that they were asked to provide answers to a developing situation, regarding a disease about which little was known (and which is still not fully understood). The number of (self-proclaimed) experts has also risen, and it is fair to say they aren’t any wiser. Scientific work needs the engagement of citizens to be accepted, after all it is (like art) funded by the public. As regards the above question, this project has made me more aware of this dependence of both science and art on public acceptance and the need for efficient communication to achieve this acceptance. During your residency you and artist discussed work in light of one or several SDG’s. Are artists and scientists combined better equipped to bring SDG’s come to fruition than each on their own? Did your residency (so far) influence your answer here, if yes, how? Different strokes for different folks. Therefore, yes, a combination of science and art will lead to better understanding of the matter, provided each disciplines’ fundamental qualities aren’t compromised in the approach. Artists go out in the world for inspiration and research, and later for presentation, in contrast to many scientists that work on dedicated problems, often confined in laboratories, showing results within academia. Did your residency inspire you to bring your research to a wider audience? And do you find ways to do so, now or later? This question pertains to a somewhat narrow perception of science and scientists. Yes, science does take place in the ivory tower, at least to some extent, and members of the general public would find themselves lost in that ivory tower very quickly. This is because the wealth of knowledge amassed over the centuries is such that it requires a specialist language. That is not to say that scientists are self-absorbed beings all the time, though some scientific work lends itself more easily to wider discussions. I’ve been working in fields which could be explained to a wider public quite easily, at least in terms of their application (‘hand-waiving arguments’), not necessarily in terms of their theoretical foundation (mathematical equations). That said, this project has made me realise that more needs to be done, that science needs to be communicated in better ways. Artists and scientists speak very different languages, even though their research can be quite close. Can you give examples on how you encountered and overcame this problem? What other challenges on differences in knowledge and communication have you faced as a researcher in residency with an artist? In our project, we wanted to show that what is considered as (food)waste by someone, could in fact be a raw material for someone else. This is what the circular economy is about. I have been to Greece to apply this concept with orange peels, eggshells, and banana peels to make air freshener, essential oils, calcium pills, water cleaner and other products. I have seen how terms which are so familiar in the science world that they are universally understood, regardless of the country any given scientist may come from. That was not the case here. We are really talking different languages. It was quite humbling for me to have to adapt my language so that we could work efficiently together, and to see how fast they could catch up when necessary. I had to also adapt the experiments that I thought of at the beginning. I would have shocked any scientist today, but probably not 100 years ago. I did like the colliding of these two different worlds and will go on expanding it in the future. Would you recommend a residency to your colleagues? Is such residency more relevant for younger or senior scientists? Projects like this can be an eye-opener, in particular with respect to communication. Whether participation in such projects is helpful or not will therefore depend on the career-path of the scientist in question, e.g. researchers working on highly classified projects (say, in a military lab) would probably find the experience rather useless. On the other extreme of the scale, students studying to become teachers would probably find this extremely useful. Colliding Epistemes The exposition has been presented at Bozar, the Centre for Fine Arts; from May 6th to June 19th, 2023. Rue Ravenstein 23, 1000 Brussels

Public speaking and workshops I highly recommend Dr Audrey-Flore Ngomsik, particularly with regard to her public speaking and workshop skills. As a public speaker, Dr Ngomsik is always clear, concise, informative and engaging. Her workshop skills are exceptional, leaving participants with a deeper knowledge of her given subject, while always providing insight, interaction with and between workshop participants, and a wonderful sense of fun!! If want to engage and inform audiences, choose Dr Audrey-Flore Ngomsik. You'll be glad you did! Dorrie D, Writer, Cultural Curator, Speaker/Moderator

Thriving the breakthrough movement - podcast episode 34 Episode Description My guest this week is Audrey-Flore Ngomsik, CEO & Co-Founder of Trianon Scientific Communication and President of The Brussels Binder. In this episode, she discusses how: A more complex and dynamic world makes diversity more necessary to survive and thrive Incorporating diversity into targets and incentives is needed to make change happen Role models are important for breaking barriers and inspiring those that follow Diversity can drive better stakeholder engagement and commercial opportunities The business case for sustainability is a strategic choice that begins with leadership

A deeper understanding of climate change... After the IPCC report published last month, climate change and what could be done against it was yet again all over the media again. But how does climate change actually work and precisely what are Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and what do they do? The Sun The temperatures we experience on Earth are due to solar radiation. The sun emits electromagnetic radiation ranging from radio-waves (long wavelength - low energy) to ultraviolet light (short wavelength - high energy). Three things can happen to the radiation coming from the sun. 1. It gets reflected/deflected. This happens to just under a third of the incoming radiation. 2. It interacts with the atmosphere. This happens to just under a quarter of the incoming radiation. 3. It does not interact with the atmosphere and hits the Earth's surface. This happens to just under half of the incoming radiation. Our atmosphere All these factors taken into account, the Earth receives about 340 Watts per square meter on average. Closer to the poles, this number decreases. On the other hand, the number is quite constant all year round. Our atmosphere consists of various gases, most notably nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, argon, and water vapour. Out of these, oxygen, nitrogen, and argon do not cause heating due to their chemical characteristics. Carbon dioxide, water vapour, and methane, on the other hand, do get warmer when hit by sunlight. The mechanism In all atoms, electrons form a cloud around the nucleus. What a tiny electron can tell us about the structure of the universe Molecules are combinations of atoms, and here the electrons form a cloud around the nuclei. Electromagnetic radiation (such as sunlight) causes changes in the electron clouds of atoms and molecules; incoming radiation can 'knock' an electron onto a higher energy level, leaving a 'hole' in its original level. After a while the elevated electron will plunge back to its original level. Both these processes cause slight changes in the molecules' geometry, and since the flux of radiation from the sun is continuous so is this conformational change - the molecules vibrate and bend continuously. When an electron is 'knocked' onto a higher energy level, it absorbs electromagnetic radiation. When it falls back, it emits electromagnetic radiation. Due to thermodynamics, the emitted radiation has to be of lower energy than the absorbed radiation. (Otherwise we could build a perpetual motion machine.) While the incoming radiation that promotes electrons to a higher energy level is ultraviolet (i.e. of wavelengths < 400 nm) the radiation emitted is infrared (i.e. of wavelengths > 800 nm) which we experience and measure as heat. So much for the fundamentals. Which GHGs are there? The one everybody has heard of is of course carbon dioxide, CO2. However, there are others as well, such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), water vapour (H2O), and various halogenated gases (CFCs etc.). All these gases contribute to global warming but to a varying degree. Compared to the main constituents of our atmosphere (oxygen (O2, about 21%) and nitrogen (N2, about 78%)) the concentrations of the Greenhouse Gases are exceedingly small, e.g. the concentration of CO2 is less than 0.0002%. However, their effect is undeniable. The reason for this is that the main constituents of our atmosphere do not act as Greenhouse Gases, they are climatically neutral. Hence, it is the rest that makes the difference. In this context it should be mentioned that there are gases which have a cooling effect, most notably nitrogen oxides (other than the above mentioned N2O) and sulphur dioxide (SO2), even though they get much less press coverage. These gases are generally acid anhydrides which is to say that they form an acid when they come into contact with water. If they remain in their anhydrous form they can cause respiratory problems animals and humans. If they react with water vapour in the atmosphere, such airborne acids precipitate with the rain and cause all manner of harmful effects on earth. Anybody who has consciously lived through the eighties will remember the term 'acid rain' and pictures of forests dying of it. Where do the GHGs come from? For the purpose of this article, CO2 has always been present in our atmosphere. CO2 is the final oxidation product of any hydrocarbon. A forest fire generates CO2 because of all the carbon contained in the trees. This is an example of a carbon-neutral process, because the forest came into existence because plants sequestered CO2 from the atmosphere in the process of photosynthesis. Burning oil or coal also releases CO2. This, however, is not a carbon neutral process; it is the reintroduction of carbon that was extracted from our atmosphere so long ago that it bears no effect on our current atmospheric composition. Reintroducing it into our atmosphere today does have an effect. Methane (CH4) is formed by certain microbes who 'breathe' CO2 and in so doing transform CO2 into CH4. This is called methanogenesis and it is the principle source of methane. Large cattle herds are blamed for their methane emissions. True, but it is methanogenic bacteria in their guts that actually produce the methane. The same goes for methane emissions from rice paddies, landfill sites, and from the ocean floor. What happens to atmospheric methane? Anybody who has had a little bit of chemistry at school (and didn't sleep through it!) will remember that methane is a reactive gas, it burns. Does atmospheric methane get 'burned' to CO2? Not quite. In the higher altitudes of our atmosphere chemistry works in different ways to what we are used to down here on Earth. The reason for that is the much higher UV radiation which leads to species like long-lived radicals. Methane is oxidised but not to CO2 but only to formaldehyde (H2CO). This reaction also produces water vapour and sometimes ozone, depending on the reaction pathway. Halogenated gases (such as CFCs) are entirely anthropogenic in nature. CFCs in particular have become known for their detrimental effect on the ozone layer and were banned under the Montreal Protocol.[REF01] Halogenated gases are diverse class of compounds and would merit an entire article in their own right. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is probably best known as 'laughing gas'. It is used as an anaesthetic and is listed on the World Health Organisation's List of essential medicines.[REF02] N2O also finds application in rocket fuels. N2O results from both natural (~ 2/3) and anthropogenic processes (~ 1/3). Like methane, N2O is generally of microbial origin. Anthropogenic emissions are due to activities such as livestock manure, nitrogen-based fertilisers, and the burning of biomass. Like CFCs, N2O has a detrimental effect on the ozone layer. The differences between various Greenhouse Gases In order to compare the individual contributions of the various GHGs to global warming scientists have chosen CO2 as the reference point. GHGs differ in their Global Warming Potential (GWP) as well as their lifetime. The GWP is defined as the heat absorbed by any Greenhouse Gas (bar CO2) as the multiple of the heat absorbed by the same mass of CO2. As it turns out, the GWP of all Greenhouse gases other than CO2 is invariably higher than that of CO2; by up to five orders of magnitude. Lifetime may be visualised as the mass of GHG X in a box of volume V divided by the sum of the flow of X out of the box, the chemical loss of X, and the deposition of X. Put in very simplistic terms: It's In divided by Out. The lifetime of CO2 itself is a topic of considerable debate. Again, put in very simplistic terms: Due to the enormous variations of the In the mathematical models lose their reliability. A few practical examples: Methane has a GWP of 28 and lifetime of 12.4. That means, release of 1 kg of CH4 absorbs 28 times the heat 1 kg of CO2 would absorb and will continue to do so for 12.4 years. One of the halogenated hydrocarbons, Tetrafluromethane (CF4) on the other hand has a GWP of 50,000 and lifetime of 6,630. That means, release of 1 kg of CF4 absorbs 50,000 times the heat 1 kg of CO2 would absorb and will continue to do so for 6,630 years. The term Global Warming Potential implies a time-factor. This takes into account that GHGs are also removed from the atmosphere. As methane is converted into other species its effect on global warming decreases. Over the time-frame of 100 years the GWP of methane is 25. Over the first 20 years, however, its GWP is significantly higher, 86. The time-frame is often indicated as a suffix, GWP100 indicates that the time frame for which the GWP has been calculated/estimated is 100 years. The carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) of a gas is simply the mass of CO2 which would warm the atmosphere by the same amount. There are other ways of expressing the same concept placing different emphasis on different aspects. Where the Global Warming Potential estimates the heat absorbed by Greenhouse Gases, the Global Temperature Change Potential (GTP) estimates the change in surface temperature of the earth. Another metric is Radiative Forcing Capacity. It is the amount of energy (per time and area) that would otherwise be lost to space by reflection or deflection. In the context of the IPCC reports: It is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the current climate change is man-made and that the consequences of continued unchecked release of Greenhouse Gases into the atmosphere will bring disastrous consequences and the forthcoming report of Work Group III on possible countermeasures will make for a very interesting read. For a selection of similar articles, subscribe to our blog. 01) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol 02) https://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/EML2015_8-May-15.pdf

IPCC climate change report summary of 8500 pages in 3 min To boost the post’s SEO, include a keyword in the title. On Monday, the 20th of March 2023, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published their 6th report on global warming in Interlaken, Switzerland. To be precise, they published the so-called Synthesis Report of the sixth assessment period.[REF01] This is a summary of more than 8500 pages. The IPCC consists of three Work Groups and in this Synthesis Report the findings of Work Groups I - III are summarised and spliced together. The Synthesis Report will be taken as the basis for discussion at the next UN Climate Summit, called COP28, which is set to take place in Dubai in November 2023.[REF03] Who is IPCC? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed by both the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in 1988.[REF02] Its purpose is to assess the development of climate change and its understanding as well as to provide strategies against global warming. It consists primarily of volunteers from all walks of the scientific community (biologists, meteorologists, physicists, economists, social scientists etc.) accordingly organised into various working groups. What do they do and what do they not do? The scientist volunteers gather, assess, and summarise the available scientific information regarding climate change. This information is then distilled into extensive and lengthy reports which are generally only read by experts interested in particular points. Much shorter and much more readable versions of these reports are also prepared, they are called 'Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs)' and these are (or should be!) read and understood by everyone. This document is signed by 195 countries, so the wording has been carefully scrutinised! The IPCC does not conduct its own research, it is a meta-research organisation. As said above, this report is the report of Work Group II. There are three Work Groups. WG I deals with the fundamental, physical understanding of climate change. WG II assesses the impacts of and the adaptions and vulnerabilities to climate change, and WG III suggests and evaluates ways and measures of mitigating climate change and its effects. The report of Work Group I was published in August last year and the report of Work Group II was expected in August this year but came early. So what does the report say? Human activities principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C. That we knew... This warming has and will continue to heart people non evenly on the planet. Vulnerable communities contributed the least to current climate change are disproportionately affected. That we knew too. Most observed adaptation responses are fragmented, incremental, sector-specific and unequally distributed across regions... So, our efforts are too little, not up to the task, and we work in silos. (...) it is likely that global warming will exceed 1.5°C... and make it harder to limit warming below 2°C... This is the key finding. Green House Gas emissions are still increasing, which makes the climate clock tick faster. Continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increasing global warming...(...) Every increment of global warming will intensify multiple and concurrent hazards. In order to reach the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C (over the levels of 1850) before 2030, we must reduce GHG emissions. We have a limited amount of GHGs we can still emit before those GHGs WILL result in an average temperature of more than 1.5 °C higher than in 1850. Why the limit of 1.5 °C? Because a higher increase will result in irreversible changes to the natural resources we all depend on. This limited amount of GHGs is called the Carbon Budget. And it tells us where we could go. As it tell us what we need to do to reduce global warming to 1.5°C. It is estimated at 500 billion tons. This is to say that if we emit another 500 bn tons of CO2 we have a 50% chance of meeting the 1.5 °C limit. Emitting just 400 bn tons will give us a higher chance, 67%, and emitting just 300 bn tons will increase this chance to 87%. We have a rapidly narrowing or closing window of opportunity to act. As said above, GHG emissions are still increasing. That means, in order to 'stay within the budget' we will need to reduce our annual output even more in the coming six and a half years. The good news is that it is doable. Climate policies are working ... policies have enhanced energy efficiency, reduced rates of deforestation and accelerated technology deployment... Multiple lines of evidence suggest that mitigation policies have led to several Gt CO2-eq/year avoided emissions. We have at our disposal climate change solutions which are available, cheaper and well-liked. Several mitigation options, notably solar energy, wind energy, electrification of urban systems, urban green infrastructure, energy efficiency, demand-side management, improved forest-and crop/grassland management, and reduces food waste and loss, are technically viable, are becoming increasingly effective and are generally supported by the public. As said above, GHG emissions are still increasing. That means, in order to 'stay within the budget' we will need to reduce our annual output even more in the coming six and a half years. Future IPCC reports This reports the sixth assessment period. An assessment period is usually around seven years. That would mean the next IPCC reports will be due around 2030, the time at which we will have to have met the climate goals or face the consequences. It might very well be the case that by then the focus of the next reports will be on emergency measures to mitigate the most drastic consequences, such as relocating populations from areas which have become uninhabitable due to intolerably high temperatures, severe droughts, and rampant diseases. At present, no information regarding the seventh assessment period is available. This will most likely be discussed at the upcoming COP28 in Dubai in November and December 2023. To read similar articles, click on the button below.