Countries at the IPCC meeting in China failed for the third time to agree on the timeline for critical climate reports, with divisions evident among major nations. An interim deal was reached to begin assessments in 2025, while discussions will continue on the report completion deadline. The absence of U.S. delegates raised concerns regarding the future of IPCC’s support and scientific rigor.
Countries attending a recent meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Hangzhou, China, have once again failed to reach a consensus regarding the timing for releasing critical climate science reports. Despite extensive discussions, significant divisions among member nations hindered the progress towards aligning the IPCC’s efforts with established UN climate policies.
While a consensus was achieved on the structure of the IPCC’s three essential reports, delays continued concerning their delivery timeline. Most nations endorsed a proposal from the IPCC’s administrative body to finalize the scientific review by August 2028, allowing the reports to inform the Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement. Nonetheless, objections from nations like China, Saudi Arabia, and India led to unresolved discussions on this timeline.
In a last-minute compromise, the Chinese hosts facilitated an interim agreement to begin the assessment process in 2025. Future deliberations about the completion deadline will resume at the next IPCC meeting, which currently lacks a set date. IPCC Chair Jim Skea remarked on the importance of reaching consensus on the scientific scope, despite the unresolved timeline.
The seventh assessment cycle of the IPCC, known as AR7, will compile essential climate science into three reports covering the physical scientific basis of climate change, the vulnerabilities of various systems to these changes, and viable emission mitigation strategies. The previous assessment cycle notably influenced the initial Global Stocktake in 2023.
The role of China during the summit came under scrutiny, particularly in light of its need for leadership in global climate policy, especially following the U.S.’s retreat from international climate diplomacy. Liu Zhenmin, China’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, emphasized the necessity of multilateralism in advancing climate actions, although insiders noted inconsistencies in China’s public statements versus private negotiations that reflected its national interests.
At the meeting, there was contention over potential omissions of essential keywords such as “Paris Agreement” and “fossil fuels” from the reports. Diana Urge-Vorsatz, the vice-chair of the IPCC, expressed concerns that excluding crucial scientific terminology jeopardizes the effectiveness of future climate science assessments.
Countries also encountered discord regarding a methodology report focused on carbon removal technologies. Saudi Arabia spearheaded efforts to include controversial geoengineering methods that entail altering ocean chemistry to increase carbon dioxide absorption. However, most nations opposed this due to the undisclosed risks, indicating that discussions on this matter will continue in subsequent meetings.
Furthermore, the absence of U.S. government representatives marked a significant concern. The Trump administration’s travel restrictions raised apprehensions about the potential impacts on IPCC’s technical support unit and the capacity to offer expert assessments on emission reduction methods. Some experts voiced apprehension regarding the implications of prolonged U.S. absence on the IPCC’s scientific output and rigor.
In summary, the recent IPCC meeting has underscored the challenges in reaching a unified approach to critical climate science timelines amidst considerable international divisions. The lack of consensus particularly among influential nations illustrates the complexities of aligning scientific assessments with global climate initiatives. The forthcoming IPCC sessions will be pivotal in determining the trajectory of future reports and their relevance to international climate policies.
Original Source: www.climatechangenews.com
