IPCC Meeting in China Delays Decision on Climate Report Timelines

The IPCC meeting in Hangzhou faced a third delay in finalizing the timeline for significant climate assessments, with intense debates among nations. While several governments supported an August 2028 deadline aligned with the Global Stocktake, others opposed it, leading to an interim agreement starting in 2025. The absence of US delegates further complicated discussions on climate action and scientific methodologies.

During the recent meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Hangzhou, China, participants again failed to finalize the timing of crucial climate science assessments, marking the third delay. Despite reaching a consensus on the outlines for the three flagship reports, discussions over their delivery timelines remained unresolved after extensive negotiations, including a substantial 30-hour final session.

Most participating governments voiced support for a proposal aimed at completing the scientific review by August 2028, aligning it with the anticipated Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement. This initiative saw backing from European nations, Japan, Turkiye, and various developing countries. Conversely, China, Saudi Arabia, and India opposed this timeline, leading to calls from South Africa and Kenya for additional dialogue to address inclusivity concerns.

Ultimately, an interim agreement was achieved, facilitating the commencement of the assessment process in 2025. However, the question of the report’s completion deadline will be revisited at a future IPCC session that has yet to be scheduled. Jim Skea, the IPCC Chair, noted, “Despite the heavy agenda… we now have clarity on the scope of the scientific content.”

The IPCC is currently engaged in its seventh assessment cycle, tasked with compiling essential climate science through three reports addressing scientific foundations, system vulnerabilities, and mitigation strategies. The previous sixth assessment significantly influenced the recent Global Stocktake, prompting countries to commit to reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

As the summit host, China faced scrutiny regarding its leadership in climate action, particularly amidst a noted retreat from global climate engagement by the United States. Liu Zhenmin, China’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, emphasized the importance of multilateralism in climate efforts, stating, “Upholding multilateralism and strengthening global climate action is the only way forward.”

However, reports from delegates indicated a dissonance between China’s public comments and its negotiating stance, raising concerns that the country aims to shield its interests by deferring the incorporation of IPCC scientific findings into climate agreements. Zhe Yao, a global policy adviser from Greenpeace East Asia, expressed disappointment, stating, “Failing to reach a decision on the AR7 timeline only serves those who wish to hold back climate action.”

The session in Hangzhou also encountered significant contention regarding the IPCC’s methodology report on carbon dioxide removal technologies. While Saudi Arabia advocated for the inclusion of marine geoengineering strategies, this proposal was largely dismissed by other nations due to uncertainties surrounding its environmental impacts.

Compounding the challenges at the meeting was the noticeable absence of US delegates, restricted from attending due to a Trump administration policy. This absence raised concerns regarding the potential implications for the US’s involvement in the IPCC and the broader climate dialogue. Delta Merner of the Union of Concerned Scientists warned that continued exclusion could impair the IPCC’s capability to deliver thorough and effective reports.

The recent IPCC meeting in China highlighted ongoing divisions among countries regarding climate report timelines, resulting in another delay for key assessments. While certain nations advocated for alignment with the Global Stocktake, resistance from several key players underscored the complexities of reaching a consensus. The meeting’s unresolved discussions and the absence of US representatives raise significant questions about the future trajectory of international climate policy and scientific integrity.

Original Source: www.climatechangenews.com