At the latest IPCC meeting, governments delayed a decision on the timing of key climate reports for the third time, exposing deep divisions over alignment with UN climate policy. While a majority supported a timeline to conclude the scientific review by August 2028, significant opposition emerged from China, Saudi Arabia, and India. An interim agreement was reached to commence the assessment process in 2025, with future discussions planned.
Governments have once again delayed a significant decision regarding the timing of critical climate science assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), marking the third postponement due to ongoing divisions over alignment with UN climate policy. While officials successfully outlined three flagship reports during the meeting in Hangzhou, China, they could not reach consensus on their delivery timeline despite extended negotiations, including a 30-hour session on the last day.
A majority of nations supported a proposal from the IPCC’s administrative body to complete the scientific review process by August 2028, ensuring alignment with the “Global Stocktake” under the Paris Agreement. This plan garnered support from several countries, including those from Europe, Japan, Turkiye, small island states, Latin America, and least developed nations. However, significant opposition arose from China, Saudi Arabia, and India, with calls for further discussions from South Africa and Kenya regarding the inclusivity of the process.
In a last-minute arrangement, China, as the host of the summit, facilitated an interim agreement which allows the assessment process to commence in 2025. Discussions regarding the deadline for completing the reports are set to continue in the forthcoming IPCC session, which lacks a confirmed date. IPCC chair Jim Skea expressed optimism, stating, “Thanks to the Panel’s ability to build and achieve multilateral consensus, we now have clarity on the scope of the scientific content.”
The seventh assessment cycle of the IPCC, known as AR7, is responsible for compiling extensive climate science into three reports addressing the physical science basis, the vulnerability of systems, and mitigation options. The earlier sixth assessment was instrumental in informing the initial Global Stocktake that resulted in commitments to transitioning away from fossil fuels during COP28.
Observers highlighted China’s role as a pivotal host, anticipating leadership in global climate initiatives amid U.S. withdrawal from international climate diplomacy during the Trump administration. Liu Zhenmin, China’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, acknowledged the climate science community’s contribution. Despite public affirmations, there were reports of a disconnect between China’s public statements and their closed negotiation postures, potentially straining international cooperation.
Diana Urge-Vorsatz, a Hungarian scientist, raised concerns about efforts to eliminate important scientific terms from the IPCC reports. In a LinkedIn post, she criticized the removal of terms such as “Paris Agreement” and “fossil fuels,” asserting that without a robust assessment of pertinent topics, the effectiveness of global climate initiatives could be compromised.
Contrarily, countries failed to agree on a methodology report focused on carbon removal technologies. Saudi Arabia’s push for including marine geoengineering techniques was met with resistance from most nations, which deemed it premature due to the uncertainties surrounding these technologies. Continuing discussions will take place in future meetings, as environmental risks remain significant.
The conspicuous absence of U.S. government delegates due to a travel ban by the Trump administration underlined the gathering’s dynamics. While the potential full withdrawal of the U.S. from the IPCC remains uncertain, concerns persist regarding the implications for technical support units vital for emission reduction assessments. An expert from the Union of Concerned Scientists noted that continued barriers to U.S. participation would substantially weaken the IPCC’s ability to create comprehensive reports.
In summary, the recent IPCC meeting in Hangzhou revealed significant challenges facing international efforts to address climate change, highlighted by disagreements over critical timelines and methodologies for reporting. The inability to align climate science assessments with UN policies underscores the complexities and divergent priorities among nations. As discussions progress, the urgent need for cooperative and decisive action in mitigating climate challenges remains paramount, particularly for countries vulnerable to climate impacts.
Original Source: www.climatechangenews.com
