Is the IPCC becoming too politicized?

By CLARE SHARKEY
Published: December 9, 2009

GENEVA —In the run up to the UNSC meeting, the IPCC have been amongst the most vocal. Indeed their report, published and commended by The New York Times, has been instrumental in shaping the decisions of the delegations stating in no uncertain terms that the time to act is now.  According to a recent statement, their role is two-fold, not only creating scientific census but also raising awareness among the public and policy makers. The scientific evidence is beyond dispute, and the IPCC has been working unrelentingly to publicize the information through press conferences and interviews with media outlets.

The IPCC’s role is not to propose policies but to present options. They stressed that they are “on nobody’s side yet everyone’s” in a press conference when questioned on the matter of whether they were overstepping the mark, by the NYT correspondent. They insist that the “broader definition of security” is essential given the wide-ranging global consequences of  the projected temperature increases. This notion of security is of course the key question delegations must seriously weigh-up in the forthcoming negotiations. But how helpful really is it to lump issues from biodiversity, economic growth and sustainable development into one conference? With each of the COP conferences, it seems that extra issues get tacked on and that makes the central aim of the UNFCCC, that is reducing carbon emissions, get convoluted. Within the current round of talks there is already a clear friction between the various negotiation blocs: Annex 1, newly industrializing countries and G77. Thus the task if the IPCC has got extremely complicated. Some critics claim that the remit of the IPCC is too broad and that scientists ought not to do the job of economists.

A number of the delegations have suggested setting up a special agency, notably France, one of the P5 nations and key in the negotiations, and Burkina Faso who will be chairing the meeting. This could potentially take these issues out of the IPCC’s hand and allow them to carry out their primary duty: creating scientific consensus. Nowhere in their communication does it make clear which organizations the IPCC consults outside of the scientific community and they reacted strongly when this news source publicized the meeting with the American Petroleum Institute, a strong economic interest group last week. The original article was phrased in way that was speculative and in the absence of other details being made public through the IPCC or the API, and it is perfectly legitimate for the NYT to raise suspicions as is our right to press freedom. According to their statement (sent to the NYT and subsequently published when we declined to publish it) the “notion of collaboration itself [being] a source of some mirth amongst IPCC members” Despite this, details of the meeting still have not been made public. The New York Times does not feel that it is necessary to publish the whole statement as this issue threatens to overshadow the debate when there is more at stake than the reputation of the IPCC. However, in the interests of journalistic obligations to disseminate information, we advise that it is available via Moodle.

This confusing array of issues are real for all of the parties involved. How will the various delegations negotiate this minefield of information? And that includes the IPCC.