Climate Science Debate Framed as Binary Battle is Dangerous
Lidy Nacpil of the Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development argues that framing UN climate talks as a battle between science defenders and attackers is wrong and dangerous.
Framing the global climate science debate as a simple battle between defenders and attackers of science is both wrong and dangerous, according to a civil society leader. Lidy Nacpil, coordinator of the Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development, warns this binary narrative misdiagnoses the substantive political and methodological debates within UN climate negotiations.
Nacpil states that no one disputes climate action must rest on science, which defines the causes of the crisis and the remaining carbon budget. However, she argues that applying principles like equity to real-world problems requires scientific grounding to address differentiated responsibilities among nations.
Scrutiny of IPCC Models
Current critiques focus on the assumptions within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Integrated Assessment Models. These economic and technological assumptions are normative choices, not neutral scientific facts. They include discount rates, economic growth projections, and the regional location of mitigation efforts.
Many model scenarios prioritize global cost-effectiveness, directing emissions cuts to where they are modelled as cheapest. This approach, Nacpil contends, allows developed nations to maintain high consumption levels while demanding substantial mitigation from developing countries. Such pathways can threaten food security and local development in the Global South.
Northern models often assume uniform access to cheap financing, a condition not reflected in the higher capital costs faced by Global South economies. When models treat unequal starting points as uniform, their policy pathways risk locking in global inequality under the guise of scientific objectivity.
Tensions Over AR7 Timing
A separate tension concerns the timeline for the IPCC's Seventh Assessment Report. Some advocate for completing reports in time to inform the UN's Second Global Stocktake in 2028. While timely science for policymakers is a valid motivation, Nacpil reports warnings from developing-country negotiators.
An accelerated schedule could disadvantage Global South researchers, who often work with fewer resources and less administrative support. This raises concerns about inclusivity and representation in the scientific assessment process. The debate over the AR7 timeline, therefore, centers on equity.
Cooperation Requires Equity
Nacpil asserts that political interests are indeed at work in negotiations, with some actors seeking to evade commitments. However, she cautions against conflating legitimate scientific critiques from Global South researchers with obstructionism. Delegitimizing these equity-focused perspectives undermines critical scientific work.
The climate movement is strongest when it aligns rigorous science with global equity and justice, Nacpil concludes. Achieving the Paris Agreement's goals requires science that fully integrates the experiences and contributions of the Global South. Effective international cooperation cannot be sustained without equity.
