Diana Urge-VorsatzDiana Urge-Vorsatz
• 2nd • 2nd Vice Chair of the IPCC, Professor at Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University
2h • 2 hours ago
After immensely hard work and many sleepless hours, the IPCC can be very proud to have the planned content of all the products of the Seventh Assessment hashtag#AR7 cycle agreed on.
At the same time, I need to register my concerns about the future of both the IPCC as well as our global climate based on certain trends that the changes in the outlines signal.
It is concerning that key words that formed the backbone of previous reports, assessments that were consistent and among the most used components of ARs cycle after cycle after cycle were not accepted to be included in the outlines.
Key scientific concepts, such as hashtag#policies, hashtag#exPostEvaluation, hashtag#scenarios, hashtag#pathways, hashtag#infrastructure, national and subnational [policies], hashtag#lockin, hashtag#maladaptation, hashtag#targets, hashtag#goals, hashtag#NDCs, hashtag#fossilfuels, hashtag#subsidies, cost of inaction, hashtag#UNFCCC, hashtag#ParisAgreement, trade, conflict, market-based [instruments], non-state actors, hashtag#electrification, policy packages, acceleration, hashtag#overshoot, environmental impacts, hashtag#attribution, future emission trends, among others – have been questioned and either cut or replaced in many places, many of these key words do not appear any more in the outline of one WG.
Some words, like the hashtag#ParisAgreement, acceleration, pathways, that form important parts of one working group’s agreed outline, were considered as too policy prescriptive in another working group and were excluded.
In the cycle when we may officially exceed 1.5C global warming and thus the goal of the Agreement signed by virtually all governments, the IPCC will significantly compromise its policy relevance if it cannot focus its assessment, among all the other crucial topics well reflected in the outlines, also on knowledge and science related to NDCs, the Paris Agreement, accelerating not only adaptation but also mitigation action, comprehensive (and policy neutral) ex-post evaluation of policies.
Without a robust assessment of the exponentially growing experience and knowledge on the topics relevant to our global efforts, we are jeopardizing the effectiveness of these crucial multilateral processes – that have so far taken us off of the worst climate pathways since the PA, and that have helped catalyse important achievements such as loss and damage funds and other financial instruments.
We could also jeopardise the very existence of multilateralism about climate change. As already signalled by recent events and trends – if the perspectives and efforts of some parties are poorly reflected, if the relevance of IPCC reports to a crucial part of the global discourse is compromised – it is increasingly concerning how long some parties can still uphold their strong moral (and financial) commitment to not only IPCC but also the multilateral processes such as the UNFCCC, considering the shifts in preferences of their voters.
This is a risk to all of us.
Disclaimer: These are my personal views and not those of the IPCC