The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the world’s leading scientific body on climate change, producing reports that shape climate policy for governments, businesses, and activists. Its assessments inform global climate negotiations, influencing everything from emissions targets to adaptation strategies. Yet, behind these authoritative reports lies a deeply political process, where scientific assessments must be approved through negotiations between governments, often influenced by competing national interests. The latest IPCC session, held in Hangzhou, China, was no exception.
Laura Bullón-Cassis, a postdoctoral fellow at the Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy, attended the 62nd session of the IPCC from 24 February to 1 March 2025 as part of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) reporting team.
For the first time in IPCC history, the United States was absent—widely seen as a consequence of the Trump administration’s return. This retreat raised serious concerns about the future of international climate cooperation. Meanwhile, small island and developing nations—already on the front lines of climate change—faced significant barriers to participation as negotiations dragged on. As the final session stretched into a grueling 38-hour marathon—30 hours beyond the scheduled end—many small delegations were forced to leave early, unable to extend their stays or rebook flights on short notice. Their absence before crucial decisions were made reignited long-standing concerns about fairness and representation in the IPCC process.
A major sticking point was the timeline for the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Cycle (AR7). Some countries pushed for a swift process to ensure the reports could inform global climate decisions, while others warned that a rushed schedule could limit the participation of scientists from developing countries. Likewise, debates over Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies highlighted tensions over the IPCC’s role in assessing controversial and unproven methods, such as marine CDR, which many scientists warn could have serious ecological consequences. With no agreement reached, discussions on these technologies were postponed until the next IPCC meeting in late 2025.
Despite these challenges, the session did lead to some progress, including plans to explore how artificial intelligence could support climate research and how Indigenous Knowledge could be better integrated into assessments. However, fundamental questions remain: With the U.S. stepping back, how will leadership in global climate science shift—and who will fill the gap? And as smaller nations continue to struggle for representation, can the IPCC ensure that all voices—not just the most powerful—help shape the world’s response to climate change?
For a deeper dive into the session’s key discussions and outcomes, read the full Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) summary and analysis.
Photos by IISD/ENB | Anastasia Rodopoulou