Governments have delayed a key decision on the timing of IPCC climate reports for the third time, despite agreeing on their outlines. Most nations supported a timeline to conclude the scientific review by August 2028, but opposition from China, Saudi Arabia, and India has hindered progress. The meeting saw significant discussions about scientific terminology and a proposed methodology report on carbon removal, with the absence of US delegates casting a shadow over the proceedings.
Governments have once again delayed a pivotal decision concerning the timing of crucial climate science assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This marks the third postponement, as officials failed to resolve significant disagreements during an extended meeting in Hangzhou, China. While the outline for the IPCC’s main reports received agreement, the specific deadlines for their completion remain undetermined.
A majority of countries supported a timeline proposed by the IPCC’s administrative arm, aiming for the scientific review to conclude by August 2028. This deadline aligns the reports with the “Global Stocktake” process under the Paris Agreement. Among supporters were European nations, Japan, Turkiye, many small island states, and several Latin American and least developed nations. However, significant opposition was voiced by China, Saudi Arabia, and India.
At the concluding stages of the summit, the Chinese hosts facilitated a temporary agreement to initiate the assessment process by 2025. Discussions surrounding the deadline for report completion will continue during the next IPCC session, which is yet to be scheduled. IPCC chair Jim Skea emphasized the clarity achieved regarding the scientific content, despite the heavy agenda and lack of consensus.
The IPCC is currently in its seventh assessment cycle, tasked with synthesizing global climate science into three essential reports. These reports will detail the physical science of climate change, the vulnerabilities of both human and natural systems, as well as strategies for emission mitigation. The previous report significantly influenced the first Global Stocktake, resulting in international commitments to transition away from fossil fuels.
China’s leadership role at the summit was closely watched, particularly in light of increasing US disengagement from international climate diplomacy. Liu Zhenmin, China’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, advocated for multilateralism as the pathway forward and acknowledged the crucial contributions of the climate science community.
However, there appears to be a disparity between China’s public statements and its negotiating stance, with some delegates suggesting that the country prioritizes its own national interests over collective climate action. This dynamic raises concerns regarding the potential for scientific findings to increase pressure on certain nations to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
The session also featured extensive technical discussions, during which concerns were raised regarding the proposed removal of critical scientific terminology from the IPCC reports. Diana Urge-Vorsatz, a vice-chair of the IPCC, highlighted that terms like “Paris Agreement” and “fossil fuels” were contested and often omitted, endangering the integrity of global climate science assessments.
Additionally, countries struggled to finalize the outline for a methodology report on carbon removal technologies. Saudi Arabia advocated for inclusion of marine geoengineering methods, but most nations deemed it imprudent to advance technologies with uncertain ramifications. Ongoing discussions are expected to address this subject in the future.
The absence of US representatives considerably impacted the meeting, attributable to restrictions from the Trump administration. While the long-term involvement of the United States in the IPCC remains uncertain, this absence has led to concerns over the sustainability of the technical support unit provided to the IPCC by the US State Department. Experts warn that continued exclusion of federal scientists would significantly undermine the IPCC’s ability to generate thorough and effective climate science reports.
In summary, the IPCC meeting concluded without resolution on pivotal timing issues for upcoming climate assessments, emphasizing divisions among nations, especially regarding the alignment of these reports with UN climate policies. While some progress was made under a temporary agreement to commence assessments by 2025, significant disagreements persist over the inclusion of critical terminology and methodologies. The absence of US participation further complicates the international climate dialogue, risking losses in scientific rigor and collaboration within the climate community.
Original Source: www.climatechangenews.com
