Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The IPCC doesn't conduct research—it synthesizes existing literature. While the public perceives thousands of climate scientists doing research, those scientists are unpaid volunteers reviewing 14,000+ peer-reviewed papers. The real power struggle happens during 'Summary for Policymakers' (SPM) approval: government delegates from 195 member states negotiate line-by-line for days, and every sentence requires unanimous consensus. Scientists describe this as turning the SPM into a 'summary BY policymakers rather than FOR them.' During AR5 WGIII approval, governments deleted graphs showing emissions by country-income groups and paragraphs on Kyoto Protocol effectiveness because they 'carried implications for Paris negotiations.' In 2023, Brazil and Argentina (major beef exporters) successfully pressured IPCC to abandon text recommending plant-based diets. The technical chapters (written by scientists) often contain stronger findings than the SPM that governments approve—but policymakers rarely read beyond the SPM.
Power Dynamics
Advisory body to UNFCCC; produces Assessment Reports every 5-7 years representing scientific consensus; reports inform COP negotiations and national climate policies.
IPCC's First Assessment Report (1990) literally created the UNFCCC—it has legitimacy-creation power. But influence is asymmetric: developing countries use findings to demand climate finance and loss-and-damage; developed countries use consensus requirement to water down inconvenient findings. Saudi Arabia, Russia, and oil-producing states routinely object to fossil fuel phase-out language. The consensus requirement gives every government a veto, systematically producing conservative estimates.
- Any of 195 member states can block SPM language during line-by-line approval
- Oil-producing states (Saudi Arabia, Russia) veto strong fossil fuel language
- Large agricultural exporters (Brazil, Argentina) veto diet recommendations
- Working Group dynamics—three separate groups can produce contradictory messages
- Government approval required for outlines, budgets, and special report topics
- IPCC ↔ UNFCCC/COP: Reports inform negotiations; SBSTA serves as intermediary
- IPCC ↔ National delegations: Governments nominate authors AND approve final SPMs
- IPCC ↔ Scientific community: 782 lead authors + thousands of reviewers for AR6
- IPCC ↔ WMO/UNEP: Parent organizations provide secretariat funding
- IPCC ↔ Major funders: US, Japan, France, Germany, Norway provide 80%+ of voluntary contributions
Revenue Structure
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Revenue Sources
- Voluntary government contributions 85%
- WMO contributions 8% →
- UNEP contributions 7% →
80%+ of 195 member states have NEVER contributed
~CHF 1-1.3M annually
Similar scale to WMO
Zero independent revenue—entirely dependent on voluntary contributions from governments it's supposed to hold accountable. Budget (~€6-8M annually) is absurdly small—less than one pharmaceutical Phase III trial. Authors are unpaid volunteers, making participation harder for developing country scientists. Major funders (Germany, Japan, US) host Technical Support Units, giving them outsized influence.
NSF: $9.5B; Horizon Europe: €95B; UNESCO: €534M; IAEA: €414M; IPCC: €6-8M. The entire IPCC Secretariat runs on less than what a single pharma company spends on one clinical trial.
Decision Dynamics at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Special Reports on urgent topics: 1.5°C Global Warming delivered in ~2 years after UNFCCC request (2015), published October 2018. Fast because it supported Paris Agreement ambitions—all governments wanted it.
Full Assessment Reports take 6-7 years minimum. AR6 involved 782 lead authors reviewing 66,000+ studies. Approval sessions can take a week of 18-hour days. AR5 WGIII approval in Berlin ran past midnight for multiple nights.
Consensus requirement is the bottleneck. Every government must agree to every sentence in SPM. Creates conservative bias (most reluctant government wins), depoliticization (thorny issues removed), and exhaustion-based compromise.
Failure Modes of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- Climategate (2009): Hacked emails misrepresented to suggest data manipulation. Multiple investigations cleared scientists, but public trust dropped
- Himalayan glacier error (2010): AR4 claimed glaciers 'could disappear by 2035'—should have been 2350. Error came from WWF report, not peer-reviewed science. Revealed poor review processes
- Political chair removal (2002): ExxonMobil memo led to lobbying to oust Robert Watson and replace with Rajendra Pachauri
- Diet language removal (2023): Brazil and Argentina pressured IPCC to remove plant-based diet recommendations from AR6
- Consensus = conservative bias: To satisfy 195 governments, IPCC systematically underestimates risks. Scientists note findings are 'lowest common denominator'
- No enforcement mechanism: IPCC can assess but not compel. Governments ignore findings without penalty
- 6-7 year cycles too slow: By AR6 publication, science was already 2-4 years old. Tipping points could pass between cycles
- Volunteer model excludes developing country scientists: Unpaid authorship favors Global North with institutional support
If major emitters coordinate to block SPM language on fossil fuel phase-out, AR7 SPM could be so watered down it becomes useless. Civil society could reject SPM, creating parallel 'shadow assessments' by journals and universities. IPCC could fracture into government-approved conservative version vs scientific community version—destroying the consensus that gives it legitimacy.
Biological Parallel
Like slime mold, IPCC is a decentralized network of thousands of scientists (cells) that must reach consensus to move forward. Slime molds solve mazes by extending pseudopodia in all directions, then reinforcing successful paths. IPCC extends 'scientific pseudopodia' (Working Groups, author teams) but can only advance where ALL pseudopodia agree—the consensus requirement. Just as slime mold is constrained by its slowest-moving pseudopod, IPCC is constrained by its most reluctant government (often Saudi Arabia). The organism can sense the optimal path (fossil fuel phase-out needed), but consensus forces it to take the path acceptable to all components.