TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Mar22/03)
7 March 2022
Third World Network

IPCC: Wrangle over past emissions constraining climate resilient development pathways

Delhi, 7 March (Indrajit Bose) – One key issue that proved contentious during the approval of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group 2 (WG 2) on ‘Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’, was over the role of past emissions in constraining climate resilient pathways.

The controversy arose following a proposal by India and which was supported by other developing countries, to reflect that past emissions have constrained climate resilient development (CRD) pathways under the sub-section titled ‘Conditions for Climate Resilient Development’ in the SPM.

Developed countries led by the United States (US) expressed their strong opposition to India’s proposal of introducing past emissions in the sentence. Eventually, after much wrangling, the reference to “past emissions” was included, but was qualified by reference to “past development choices leading to past emissions,” as being one of the constraints for CRD pathways.

The eventual paragraph which was agreed to in the SPM reads as follows:
“There is a rapidly narrowing window of opportunity to enable climate resilient development. Multiple climate resilient development pathways are still possible by which communities, the private sector, governments, nations and the world can pursue climate resilient development – each involving and resulting from different societal choices influenced by different contexts and opportunities and constraints on system transitions. Climate resilient development pathways are progressively constrained by every increment of warming, in particular beyond 1.5 C, social and economic inequalities, the balance between adaptation and mitigation varying by national, regional and local circumstances and geographies, according to capabilities including resources, vulnerability, culture and values, past development choices leading to past emissions and future warming scenarios, bounding the climate resilient development pathways remaining, and the ways in which development trajectories are shaped by equity, and social and climate justice.”

The controversy first arose around the following paragraph proposed for approval:
“Multiple pathways are possible by which communities, the private sector, sub-national governments, nations and the world can pursue climate resilient development – each involving and resulting from different societal choices influenced by different contexts and opportunities and constraints on system transitions. Conditions for climate resilient development vary by location according to vulnerability and capabilities, culture and values and the way in which development trajectories are shaped.”

India said that the possibility of pathways is not unlimited and it would like inserted in the first sentence, “multiple pathways, depending on equitable access to atmospheric carbon budget”. It explained that multiple pathways cannot be presented without any qualification and called for the following to be reflected in the paragraph, which was supported in the underlying technical assessment: “There is a rapidly narrowing window of opportunity to implement system transitions needed to enable CRD. Past choices have already eliminated some development pathways, but other pathways for climate-resilient development remain.”

Referring to the last sentence of the paragraph which states that conditions for CRD vary by location, India said location was a “neutral” term, which did not speak to the burden on developing countries, and neither does it address the need for resources or equity. India suggested that vulnerability, resources, capabilities, equity and climate justice be recorded in some form in the sentence, as otherwise, the message would appear that people are left to manage for themselves.

The US responded that carbon budget was “beyond the scope of the report”.

Following further discussions, the paragraph evolved to read as follows:
“There is a narrowing window of opportunity to enable climate resilient development. Past choices have already eliminated some climate resilient development pathways, but other pathways for climate resilient development remain. Multiple pathways, as constrained by global warming level exceeding 1.5°C, are possible by which communities, the private sector, governments, nations and the world can pursue climate resilient development—each involving and resulting from different societal choices influenced by different contexts and opportunities and constraints on system transitions. What constitutes climate resilient development including the balance between adaptation and mitigation varies by national, regional and local circumstances and geographies according to capabilities including resources, vulnerability, culture and values and the way in which development trajectories are shaped by equity and climate justice.”

Responding to the proposed formulation by the authors, India suggested adding in the second sentence “past emissions and other choices” instead of “past choices”.

With support from the authors for India’s suggestion, the sentence then read as follows:
“Past emissions and other choices have already eliminated some climate resilient development pathways.”

Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and South Africa supported India’s proposal.

The US, supported by Canada, initially suggested including current emissions to the sentence, to which IPCC’s WG2 Co-Chair Hans-Otto Pörtner argued that past choices represent a lock-in and in the current period, one still has choices and that the US’s suggestion would amount to losing the science behind the sentence. The authors also said that the US’s suggestion would change the emphasis of the sentence since they were trying to convey that some options for CRD are already lost.

The US however, remained insistent on finding a sentence that “connects the past and the future” and following further reflection, it said that it had “strong opposition to the listing of choices” and suggested reverting to the original draft (which did not include past emissions).

India argued that the sentence is important to reflect that flexibility for achieving resilience are curtailed due to past emissions for which the carbon budget is a key indicator.

Following the discussion, governments moved into a huddle facilitated by IPCC Vice Chair Youba Sokona .

Discussions in the huddle were highly contested with the US sticking to its stand of not wanting to reflect that past emissions had eliminated some CRD pathways. Norway supported the US and said that the carbon budget has nothing to do with IPCC’s WG2 (whose focus is on ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability).

Saudi Arabia supported reference to past emissions.

China raised the issue that constraints can be caused by various factors, and not just global warming levels. It said that other factors such as socio-economic factors, poverty, and inequality would also need to be included in the list of constraints to CRD.

The authors clarified that while multiple pathways remain, some have been eliminated and this is consistent with the underlying technical assessment and agreed to include the additional constraints proposed by China.

The US argued that past emissions have not been the subject of this assessment and suggested having a sentence encompassing all the constraints and for a restructuring of the paragraph but without the mention of past emissions. Following further discussion, the US suggested adding “current investments” next to past emissions and proposed the following formulation: “Past emissions, current investments that lock-in emission and development choices determine which climate development pathway remain.”

China did not agree with US’s proposal.

The authors further clarified that the proposal by the US is not supported in the underlying technical assessment. In relation to past emissions, the authors clarified that past development choices included emissions in the underlying technical assessment.

Following a lot of back and forth, the huddle agreed on restructuring the paragraph and came up with the following formulation:

“…Climate resilient development pathways are progressively constrained by global warming levels exceeding 1.5°C, social and economic inequalities, the balance between adaptation and mitigation varying by national, regional and local circumstances and geographies according to capabilities including resources, vulnerability, culture and values, past development choices, including emissions, that determine which climate resilient development pathways remain, and the way in which development trajectories are shaped by equity, and social and climate justice.”

When the paragraph above was brought to the plenary, India expressed that past emissions was buried in the sentence and that it should be reflected in the beginning of the paragraph. However, there was no agreement on this.

Following further discussions, the sentence changed from “…past development choices, including emissions, that determine which climate resilient development pathways remain” to “…past development choices leading to past emissions and future warming scenarios, bounding the climate resilient development pathways remaining…”

The plenary finally reached agreement on the formulation set out above.