Today I will introduce more international developments. I am now in charge of the second chapter of the IPCC special report on 1.5 degrees. Our chapter is very critical in the whole report. To answer whether 1.5 degrees is feasible, I will give you a lot of homework here. I very much hope that our recent international achievements impact major research.

First of all, from the perspective of the IPCC, it has basically dominated the academic mainstream of recent research on models and future climate change. European Union colleagues started to prepare these studies five years ago, and their research results had already been published when we wrote the report today. Most of the articles cited in our IPCC 1.5-degree assessment report on our desktop come from Europe and the United States, and we are one level behind. I hope you can conduct your own research according to the framework ideas I provided and publish many pieces of English literature. We will also make some arrangements for English literature. For example, some domestic journals prepare special English issues for everyone to publish.

I will use the framework of the IPCC 1.5 degree special report and the sixth assessment report to introduce to you what we will do next, especially from the perspective of the model. The first chapter is the design of the framework and the main background. The very core is what is called 1.5 degrees. The goal of 1.5 degrees is set to 2100. About ten years before and after, the average temperature will not rise by more than 1.5 degrees compared with 1850, but can it exceed 1.5 degrees to 1.6 degrees, 1.7 degrees in the middle, and then return to 1.5 degrees, the model group There is a big dispute. When it reaches 1.6 degrees and then returns to 1.5 degrees, we call it a transcendent scenario, but it seems there is no transcendent scenario. If we are left with a 1.5-degree carbon budget, it is basically impossible for our emission reduction model group. In addition to analyzing China, we are particularly interested in how other countries do 2 and 1.5 degrees. Chinese scholars need to do a lot of research on this.

The second chapter talks about how to reduce emissions. I am the CLA of this chapter. This chapter is the most questioned by everyone because, so far, less than 1% of the real 1.5 degrees can be done. Our chapter will answer whether it is feasible or not. I am in charge of writing the energy database. There are more than a thousand scenarios. I extract all the scenarios to determine how to develop, the speed of energy and photovoltaic conversion, how much money is needed, and calculate the growth rate by 2030 and 2050. , and then analyze the country to see if it is possible to do so. In this chapter, we need many papers to study what the world will be like in 2050 under the condition of a carbon budget and whether energy transition can be achieved with such a small carbon budget.

Another point is our feasibility. The model can calculate future emission reductions. We can reduce emissions as much as we want, but can you tell me its feasibility? For example, officials from the National Development and Reform Commission correspond to colleagues from the Energy Bureau and the Department of Climate Change, who are very concerned about the impact on the Chinese economy: how much coal will be shut down, and how much can it be shut down every year? When we talked about the transformation of coal in the previous paragraph, we said that coal could be reduced, but the State Council is very worried about how much unemployment the country can afford. How much energy transformation can we do every year, can the country pay for it, or can people all over the world pay for it? A lot of questions have been raised in this chapter, but so far in this database, except for the scenarios of our model group, there are very few scenarios in developing countries, and basically, developed countries are leading the research. They did it four or five years ago. Get started with this project. Our country only started to set up 1.5-degree related risk research last year, but it is too late in publishing the results and papers.

The third chapter is about adaptation and influence. I don’t have many opinions in this chapter. A piece of good news doesn’t put too much pressure on them because, before this, I have made a lot of influence and adaptation of four-degree scenarios, three-degree influence and adaptation, two-degree influence and adaptation, and up to 1.5 degrees. They feel much less stressed. When the temperature rises by 3 to 4 degrees, a lot of research will be done to affect adaptation, and when the temperature rises by 1.5 degrees, more research will be done on reducing emissions.

The fourth chapter will answer how to do the recent policy, the premise is that it is still feasible for us to answer 1.5 degrees in the second chapter. I guess colleagues in our chapter will say that 1.5 degrees is feasible. You have to consider the actual situation. This chapter is more about policy. We need a lot of papers to discuss how to do our policy framework under the low-carbon development pattern. I hope to hear more papers on carbon tax research or doing an overall study, especially how we decline after reaching the peak, becomes critical.

The fifth chapter is SDG. Sustainable development goals have become the core content of several reports, and the 1.5-degree special report puts SDGs in a very critical position, and SDGs can run through every chapter of the Sixth Assessment Report. Its research needs, on the one hand, require everyone to publish papers as soon as possible, as long as they are related to the topic, especially in English. We can quickly use this for you. If you can’t keep up, you can consider supporting the preparation of the sixth evaluation report, such as the 1.5-degree situation China requires basically to achieve zero emissions by 2050. The first question is is it possible? You can look at it from your own perspective, including population issues and social development issues, which greatly interest us. Another zero-emission city, we chose Beijing. Is it possible for Beijing to achieve zero emissions by 2050? This includes biomass plus land use patterns, technology roadmaps and linkages to sustainable development, zero-emission building scenarios and mitigation scenarios incorporating geoengineering, costs of adaptation and linkages to negotiations, economic impacts of emissions reductions, developmental impact, etc. The current research is still very little. We can't wait for the National Natural Science Foundation of China and key scientific and technological project research. We need everyone to dig out some new topics in their respective fields to do this work.

The topic of special concern now is what is feasibility. I hope to hear your papers discussing the relationship between these issues and sustainable development. This is not only done by colleagues in the energy field but also involves colleagues in all aspects because there are 17 SDGs and 169 indicators below. You can use your paper to analyze one of the indicators. This is a very good paper. It can tell me how this indicator relates to the energy system and low-carbon development and how to express the cost. Up to now, the IPCC has not answered the cost-effectiveness of climate change mitigation. We are also very disappointed. In the sixth assessment report, we hope you will do so.

The very important core of the Sixth Assessment Report is how to achieve two degrees. So far, we have discussed 17 chapters, and in the end, there are still many adjustments before and after. We had a lot of disputes at the time, from the very beginning to what is climate change and mitigation, all the way to the long-term goal, two degrees, 1.5 degrees, and then divided In terms of various departments, how to do construction, transportation, industry, cost, how to do urban development, how to do rural development, the coverage is very comprehensive.

The comprehensive evaluation model has been discussed a lot just now. The global model research has become a complex and large-scale evaluation model. It is basically difficult for a simple evaluation model to be included in the evaluation process of the IPCC. This requires everyone's attention and attention. What I want to do in the future is to close the loop from mitigation to impact to adaptation to loss and back to the social economy. At present, domestic research has not yet achieved a closed loop. I think it is very important. I myself have worked in the Energy Institute since 1990 and started to develop this model in 1991. This model is getting more and more complex, and it is probably one of the most complex models in the world. From the socioeconomic population model, to the energy system, to the atmospheric smog, and then to the health impact assessment, we hope to put it in a large space and link it with the atmospheric model, which is universal in the world.

Let me briefly show you how to do our homework. In the 1.5 degree scenario, the research of the global model group will basically achieve zero emissions by 2050 to 2060, so is it possible for China to achieve zero emissions by 2050? You can analyze whether there is such a possibility from your own perspective. Before I ran this model, I thought it was impossible for China to do 1.5 degrees, but after running the model today, I now think that the 1.5 degrees scenario is still possible, at least, I convinced myself from the content of the model.

So how to make transportation zero emission? At present, the method is to electrify transportation: electric vehicles are one way, large vehicles can be electrified by fuel cells, and ships can be electrified. The only thing that cannot be done is airplanes. Although the aircraft has proposed a conceptual design, such as a fuel cell aircraft, if the fuel cell aircraft is to be basically 100% realized by 2050, it is no longer feasible from our current technology research and development road. In aviation, bio-kerosene or bio-aviation kerosene may still be used. This is the electric vehicle roadmap we announced in 2015. Today, several car companies are following this roadmap, which has basically eliminated the revolution of traditional gasoline and diesel vehicles, and there will be no need for many charging piles in the future. How much potential is there for biofuels, we have a lot of papers to prove it.