It is a very strange experience to see a play in which I am a character and shake hands with the person who plays that role. Kyoto The play was performed at the Swan Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon, England. Of course, this moment was about more than just catching a glimpse of history: the play depicts the triumph of science over climate change denial in a crucial showdown between scientists and industry over the future of the planet.
Kyoto “The Kyoto Protocol” is a play based on the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement put together by the United Nations over 25 years ago to “limit and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by developed and transition economy countries according to agreed individual targets.” Written by Joe Murphy and Joe Robertson, the play is a collaboration between Good Chance and the Royal Shakespeare Company and is a dramatic re-enactment of the historic meeting in Kyoto in December 1997 where the Protocol was finalised.
At this conference, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s important scientific assessment informed the international emissions reduction negotiations (Working Group I of the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report, completed in 1995 and published in early 1996). I convened the conference as lead author of Chapter 8, “Detecting and Attributing Climate Change.” The role of the IPCC, then as now, is to advise the world’s governments on the science and impacts of climate change, and on strategies for mitigating and adapting to those effects.
Supporting science journalism
If you enjoyed this article, please support our award-winning journalism. Subscribe. By purchasing a subscription, you help ensure a future of influential stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping the world today.
The IPCC’s first scientific assessment, published in 1990, concluded that the jury was still out on whether signs of anthropogenic climate change could be identified in actual climate data. A chapter in the 1995 assessment reached an entirely different conclusion, summarized in 12 simple words: “The balance of evidence suggests a clear human influence on the Earth’s climate.” This was a powerful and historic statement from a cautious scientist and a fairly conservative organization.
Several factors contributed to this dramatic change. For example, advances in the science of climate fingerprinting have led to major changes in climate research in the five years between the two reports.
Fingerprinting aims to understand the unique signatures of various anthropogenic and natural influences on Earth’s climate. This uniqueness becomes apparent when we go beyond a single number, such as the average temperature of the Earth’s surface, including land and oceans, and instead look at the complex patterns of climate change. The patterns are discriminatory, allowing scientists to distinguish between signatures of human-caused fossil fuel burning and those of purely natural phenomena, such as El Niño and La Niña weather patterns, changes in solar energy output, or the effects of volcanic eruptions.
Kyoto Ahead of the Kyoto showdown, dramatized in the performance, I will describe some of the fingerprint evidence presented at a key conference in Madrid in November 1995. The conclusion, “No discernible human impact on the Earth’s climate”, was finalized in Madrid, where 177 delegates from 96 countries, representatives of 14 non-governmental organizations, and the 28 lead authors of the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report participated.
Ben Santer (left) Conversation with Dale LaPley (rightThis is the actor ( ) who plays Ben Santer in Kyoto.
I was among them at the General Assembly in Madrid, as lead author of the Evidence Chapter. KyotoThat includes the play’s central character, Donald Pearlman, who was a lawyer and lobbyist for the Climate Council, an energy industry consortium.
Pearlman and I were on opposite sides of the chessboard in Madrid. My efforts were directed at synthesizing and evaluating complex science and ensuring that that science was accurately reflected in IPCC reports. His efforts, on the other hand, were directed at slowing international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Such reductions were bad for the profits of the corporations he represented and for the revenues of oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Perlman, who died in 2005, understood the extraordinary importance of Madrid’s conclusion that “human influence is discernible.” He knew it was a scientific version of biblical prophecy. The jury was no longer out. Human traces of influence were identified in records of Earth’s surface and atmospheric temperatures. Humans were no longer innocent bystanders in the climate system but active participants. The burning of fossil fuels had altered the chemistry of Earth’s atmosphere, thereby warming the planet and raising the planet’s vital signs to dangerous levels. Madrid’s conclusions meant that the era of unlimited use of fossil fuels and carbon pollution was coming to an end.
It also made it harder for Pearlman to lobby, as he attacked science and scientists as part of a rearguard action to stall an international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As Pearlman’s character explains: KyotoIt was a deliberate “scorched earth” policy to burn out science and scientists.
I experienced this strategy firsthand when I met with Pearlman privately in Washington, DC on May 21, 1996. After I spoke at the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill about the scientific evidence of human fingerprints on the Earth’s climate, Pearlman confronted me and began screaming at me — literally screaming! He was indignant, claiming that unauthorized changes had been made to the chapter I was responsible for. As Pearlman well knew, the changes had in fact been authorized by the IPCC. He had been present at the Madrid conference where the changes were discussed.
In the end, he lost. Despite major differences between countries in terms of national interests, responsibility for the problem of man-made climate change, and vulnerability to the effects of climate change, a historic international agreement was finally reached. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol commits participating countries to a common goal: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the Earth’s climate system. Kyoto This is an inspiring story of how that agreement was reached.
In one memorable sentence KyotoPerlman’s wife, Shirley, asked him: “Are we on the wrong side?” The question arose following an exposé of Perlman’s lobbying activities in a German news magazine. Der SpiegelShirley wants to know whether her husband’s efforts to question the science of climate change — and the scientists developing that science — put them on the wrong side of history. Perlman’s character responds, “No, Shirley. We’re not on the wrong side of history.”
But Pearlman and the industry he represents was On the wrong side of science. Nearly 30 years after the Madrid IPCC meeting, and after Pearlman’s efforts to undermine climate science, the human signature on Earth’s climate is now clear and omnipresent. The cautious 1995 conclusion of “discernible human influence” has been confirmed and strengthened in all four subsequent IPCC assessments. The Madrid scientists were right.
Pearlman and his employer were also on the wrong side of history. Today, 191 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Although the U.S. Congress ultimately did not ratify it, the protocol helped pave the way for the 2016 Paris Agreement. The severe impacts of man-made global warming are now clear to all, and momentum is building for real action to reduce carbon pollution. The era of climate science denial is coming to an end.
But it’s not over yet: Another Donald, former President Donald Trump, has repeatedly denied the reality and seriousness of climate change. It’s no wonder his supporters are a lot like Pearlman’s.
It’s highly unlikely Trump will watch KyotoTrump is even less likely to consider whether he, too, is on the wrong side of science and history.
Sadly, yes: a return of Trump to the US presidency would see a repeat of Perlman’s heyday, when manufactured doubts obscured mature scientific understanding. Kyoto It tells the story of how scientific understanding evolved and how powerful vested interests sought to destroy it – and it is crucial to explain it today, as the costs of climate change grow all around us.
hoping Kyoto It will have a tangible impact on millions of people around the world. I hope that this play will reach an audience I could never reach through any scientific paper I’ve ever written. And I hope that it will provide us with what mathematicians call the principle of existence: a proof that difficult things are possible. Kyoto It turns out that humanity came together in December 1997 and agreed to solve a seemingly unsolvable problem.
look Kyoto Hopefully, it will inspire you to find your own way to change this world for the better.
This is an opinion and analysis article and the views of the author are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
