Governments have recently faced a significant challenge as they grapple with setting the timing for a pivotal climate science assessment report conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This dilemma arose during a meeting in Hangzhou, China, where officials were aiming to align the IPCC’s work with UN climate policy.
Despite ongoing discussions and a 30-hour session on the closing day, governments have delayed this critical decision for the third time. The crux of the issue lies in determining when the IPCC should deliver its three flagship reports. While an outline was agreed upon during the summit, the timeline for completing the reports became a point of contention.
Most nations supported a proposal to conclude the scientific review process by August 2028. This timeline would ensure that the reports are ready in time for the “Global Stocktake” under the Paris Agreement. However, some countries, including China, Saudi Arabia, and India, raised objections to this deadline. This led to an impasse, prompting further discussions to bridge concerns over the inclusivity of the process.
As the meeting drew to a close, the Chinese hosts brokered an interim deal to commence the assessment process in 2025. However, deliberations on the deadline for completing the reports will resume at the next IPCC session later this year. Despite the challenges faced, the meeting highlighted the Panel’s ability to build consensus and define the scope of scientific content.
The IPCC’s Role in Climate Policy Alignment
The IPCC, currently in its seventh assessment cycle (AR7), plays a crucial role in synthesizing global climate science into three comprehensive reports. These reports cover the physical scientific basis of climate change, the vulnerability of human and natural systems, and options for mitigating emissions contributing to global warming. The previous assessment cycle informed the Global Stocktake in 2023 and led to a commitment to transition away from fossil fuels at COP28 in Dubai.
The recent summit in China also shed light on the country’s stance on global climate action. As the US retreats from international climate diplomacy, China’s role as the summit host was closely observed for signs of leadership. While Chinese officials emphasized the importance of climate science in informing policy responses, there was a noticeable disparity between public statements and negotiating positions during closed meetings.
Several high-income developing nations, including China, expressed reluctance to include the IPCC reports in the next stocktake due to concerns over potential pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This divide underscores the urgent need for unified action to address climate change and protect vulnerable countries from its impacts.
Concerns Over Scientific Content and Carbon Removal Technologies
During the week-long session in Hangzhou, technical discussions focused on the content of IPCC reports, raising concerns over the removal of key scientific concepts from the outlines. Hungarian scientist Diana Urge-Vorsatz criticized efforts to omit keywords like “Paris Agreement,” “NDCs,” and “fossil fuels,” cautioning that this could jeopardize the effectiveness of global climate science.
Additionally, countries at the meeting failed to reach a consensus on an outline for a methodology report on carbon removal technologies. While some nations advocated for including controversial marine geoengineering interventions, most rejected the proposal, citing the lack of scientific evidence and potential risks associated with these technologies.
The Impact of US Absence on IPCC Proceedings
The absence of US government delegates and federal scientists due to a stop-work order imposed by the Trump administration had a notable impact on the IPCC meeting. Discussions revolved around the implications of a potential US retreat from the IPCC process, particularly concerning the technical support unit provided by the US State Department to the IPCC’s mitigation working group.
As the future participation of federal experts remains uncertain, there are growing concerns about the repercussions of a prolonged US absence on the IPCC’s ability to produce comprehensive reports. Delta Merner of the Union of Concerned Scientists highlighted the potential loss of expertise and rigorous scientific input if federal experts continue to be barred from participating in IPCC activities.
In conclusion, the recent IPCC meeting underscored the complexities and challenges associated with global climate governance. The need for inclusive decision-making, scientific integrity, and multilateral cooperation is paramount in addressing the urgent climate crisis. As nations navigate these intricate discussions, the stakes are high, and the outcomes will have far-reaching implications for our planet’s future.
