IPCC Delays Key Climate Reports Amidst Ongoing Global Divisions

At the recent IPCC meeting in Hangzhou, countries failed to finalize the timing for critical climate science assessments for the third time amid deep divisions. While a framework for the reports was agreed upon, a proposal to complete the scientific review by August 2028 met resistance primarily from China, India, and Saudi Arabia. The interim deal allows for assessment processes to begin in 2025, yet reinforces the ongoing debate over scientific content and method discussions. The absence of U.S. delegates remains a concern for the potential impact on future IPCC outputs and collaborations.

During a recent meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Hangzhou, China, nations once again failed to reach a consensus on the timing for critical climate science assessments. This marks the third delay as discussions continued unresolved on aligning IPCC findings with UN climate policy, despite extensive negotiations for nearly 30 hours on the final day. While officials approved the overall outline for three key reports, no decision was made regarding their completion dates.

A proposal advocated by many governments, including those from Europe, Japan, and several developing nations, aimed for the scientific review to finish by August 2028, aligning it with the upcoming Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement. However, countries like China, India, and Saudi Arabia countered this timeline. Subsequent to the standoff, Chinese hosts facilitated a preliminary agreement for assessing climate science to commence in 2025, with further discussions on deadlines set for a future IPCC session.

The ongoing seventh assessment cycle, known as AR7, involves producing three significant reports detailing the physical basis of climate change, the vulnerabilities it poses, and potential mitigation strategies. The sixth assessment previously informed the first Global Stocktake in 2023, leading to renewed commitments to phase out fossil fuels at COP28 in Dubai.

Additionally, observers noted China’s dual role as host and a participant, with some expressing hope for leadership in climate negotiations, especially with the United States’ diminished involvement under previous administrations. China’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, Liu Zhenmin, underscored the importance of multilateralism in advancing climate action, although some delegates identified discrepancies between China’s public commitments and its negotiating stance.

Inside the session, there were tensions regarding scientific terminology within IPCC reports. Diana Urge-Vorsatz, a Hungarian scientist and vice-chair of the IPCC, denounced efforts aimed at removing crucial terms related to the Paris Agreement and fossil fuel discussions, asserting that such omissions risk undermining the integrity of global climate science.

The meeting also witnessed disputes over a methodology report on carbon removal technologies. While Saudi Arabia advocated for inclusion of marine geoengineering, this was largely rejected due to concerns over associated risks. Mary Church of the Center for International Environmental Law stressed that current scientific knowledge is insufficient to endorse these technologies.

The absence of U.S. delegates was notably felt during the discussions, attributed to a travel restriction enacted by the former administration. Uncertainty remains about the U.S. commitment to the IPCC process, with discussions indicating that the absence of U.S. federal scientists could hinder the production of future comprehensive reports.

In conclusion, the IPCC meeting in Hangzhou highlighted significant challenges facing global climate negotiations, particularly the inability to agree on report timelines critical to climate action. Disputes over the content and methodologies of reports reflect deeper divisions among nations, particularly between developing countries and major economies. The ongoing absence of U.S. participation adds to concerns regarding the effectiveness of future climate assessments, emphasizing the urgent need for collaboration to address climate vulnerabilities and the associated risks.

Original Source: www.climatechangenews.com