My colleague Dr. Kristy Dahl and I arrived in Sofia, Bulgaria, last week for the 61st session of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We are here to engage in early discussions about timelines and content for this cycle of IPCC reports. Over the next week, we will hear delegations and organizations from all across the world discuss, debate, and make decisions that will set the stage for this 7th cycle of the IPCC.
For me, this planning is deeply personal and vital to my work. As a scientist, I rely heavily on the IPCC’s reports. These documents offer an internationally accepted summary of the state of climate science, and form the backbone of many legal briefs I prepare. The IPCC enables decision-makers to move beyond fossil fuel industry-generated deception and disinformation about climate change, providing them with the science needed to make informed decisions.
It’s crucial that our leaders have access to comprehensive and accurate science to guide their choices. This is why ensuring that the IPCC reports include robust and diverse scientific insights is so vital.
Decisions we make now will guide upcoming IPCC reports
We are gathering in Sofia to shape key decisions about the upcoming IPCC reports. Among the primary discussions is the outline for the Special Report on Cities and Climate Change. This report is especially significant given the growing impact of urban areas on global emissions, and the unique challenges cities face in adapting to climate change. We will also tackle the outline that will guide the Methodology Report on Short-Lived Climate Forcers. Short-lived climate forcers are pollutants, including aerosols and particulate matter, that remain in the atmosphere for a shorter period than carbon dioxide but have a potent impact on global warming and air quality. Developing robust methodologies to measure and mitigate their effects is important for our overall climate strategy.
The three working group reports, which are well known as the core of the IPCC’s outputs, are also on the agenda. These reports, which cover a wide array of scientific, technical, and socioeconomic aspects of climate change, are still awaiting definitive timelines. During the last meeting there was extensive debate about the timing of these reports, as a looming question remains: Will the IPCC working group reports be completed in time to inform the UNFCCC Global Stocktake (GST)? The UNFCCC GST is a process for assessing collective progress towards achieving the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement, with the second GST taking place in 2028. During the opening session there was a clear call for actionable, timely science. The IPCC is not policy-prescriptive, but with emissions growing and climate action lacking, there is a need to align the timing of these reports with key global decision making.
What we’re watching for
In addition to the set agenda, based on comments from the opening day, we expect these key areas to be discussed and debated among the experts and delegates here:
- Encouraging Diverse and Inclusive Participation
A significant aspect of this session is the call to diversify IPCC authors. During the 6th assessment report cycle, over 100,000 scientific papers were assessed by 796 authors, 59% of whom were from developed countries and 67% of whom were male. There’s a strong need to continue diversifying IPCC authors geographically and by gender. This diversity ensures that the IPCC assessments are more comprehensive and inclusive, reflecting a wide range of perspectives and expertise.
- The Importance of Adaptation
Adaptation—which involves adjusting systems and practices to minimize the adverse effects of climate change, and is crucial for developing strategies that protect vulnerable communities and ecosystems—remains a key focus. The very first question to the panel was about the need for robust work on adaptation, echoing powerful calls for a focus on adaptation made during the last IPCC plenary meeting. While adaptation is discussed throughout IPCC reports, this dispersed approach can make it difficult to gain a comprehensive understanding. Is there a better way for the IPCC to uplift research on adaptation?
- Incorporating Broader Knowledge
The IPCC pulls together existing scientific literature on climate change; however, there is additional, robust knowledge that falls outside traditional scientific journals. We expect a continued discussion about increasing the volume of gray literature, especially for the climate change and cities report, where much knowledge resides outside traditional academic publications. During the last meeting, the IPCC committed to working on including more non-English scientific literature and Indigenous knowledge, recognizing that valuable insights often come from diverse sources.
What we’re pushing for
During this assessment cycle, UCS is hoping to see continued and expanded attribution science cited throughout the reports, including source attribution research, which can help to link emissions to specific fossil fuel producers.
There is also a need to ramp up processes to meaningfully incorporate Indigenous knowledge. This is not a simple step, but one that is necessary.
We are also calling for the IPCC to incorporate more of the social science research that is helping us to understand the obstruction of climate science. To understand where climate policy is today, we believe it’s essential to have a clear understanding of the ways that bad actors, including the fossil fuel industry and its surrogates, have sought to confuse the public and policymakers about climate science and delay necessary action. Decisionmakers need to consider this evidence of interference when shaping policies. We are also watching for evidence that vested interests of industries such as fossil fuels and agribusiness may be trying to influence this IPCC cycle.
Finally, as the IPCC is committed to writing a report on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS), we will be advocating for holistic thinking around CDR and CCUS that pulls from physical and social science and weighs both benefits and drawbacks. All these elements are crucial for creating reports that truly support informed decision-making.
It is an honor to be present at this gathering, where representatives from around the globe have convened with a shared commitment to collaboration, respectful debate, and scientific expertise. Although it’s not without its flaws, the IPCC stands as a unique convergence of country representatives and scientists, working together through a consensus-driven process.
Here’s hoping that we make this session a milestone in the fight against climate change by ensuring that it is inclusive, comprehensive, timely, and willing to address root causes.