The Trump administration pulled the US out of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change aka IPCC, the Nobel Prize-winning UN body whose goal is to help governments develop climate policies, before the world gasped at the showdown in the White House between Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky on one side and Donald Trump and J.D. Vance on the other.
The US did not take part in this week’s IPCC meeting held in China’s Hangzhou to set the course for its next major report.
Late last week, the Trump administration denied US officials permission to attend the key IPCC meeting and cut funding for a technical support contract. During Trump’s first term, the US still attended global climate meetings, though with a lower profile.
According to reports by CNN and Nature Journal, Trump has also ordered federal agencies, including Nasa and the US Global Change Research Program, to stop participation in IPCC-related work.
The US is the world's second-largest annual emitter of planet-warming gases after China, and America’s total emissions since the late 19th century are the highest of any country.
At the heart of the Hangzhou session was the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report (AR7), a scientific review that will shape global climate policy until the end of the decade.
The meeting in Hangzhou was to finalise the report’s outlines, budget and timelines, as well as methodologies for carbon capture and storage – topics where US leadership has historically been crucial for financial support.
While the US remained absent, over 400 delegates from 195 countries, including top climate scientists, diplomats and policymakers, gathered in China. Nasa’s chief scientist, Katherine Calvin, was scheduled to co-chair key discussions but was abruptly forced to cancel due to the administration’s stop-work order.
The US has historically played a major role in global climate research. The IPCC has relied heavily on American scientists and funding since 1988.
The scientists’ group of the 2001 IPCC meet was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for its contributions to climate science. The landmark "hockey stick" graph featured in the IPCC’s 2001 report called special attention to former US vice president Al Gore for his efforts to “obtain and disseminate greater knowledge concerning man-made climate changes”, according to the Nobel committee.
The Trump administration has consistently looked down upon climate science, slashed funding, and prioritised fossil fuel production. The US President has mocked renewable energy, promising to “drill, baby, drill.”
So the move to boycott the IPCC meeting aligns with Trump’s agenda.
Why does this matter so much? The IPCC panel’s reports serve as the foundation for global climate action, shaping everything from national policies to UN climate summits.
“The IPCC assessments are the foundation of informed climate policy,” Dr Aditi Mukherji, the coordinating lead author of the IPCC AR6 Working Group II, told The Telegraph Online.
“Science knows no borders, yet US scientists are facing barriers to joining critical meetings! Their absence due to political reasons is a loss for everyone. When experts are kept from the table, the world loses the fight against climate change," Mukherji, an alumna of Presidency College, JNU, IIT Bombay and Cambridge University, added.
Has she ever faced a situation where critical climate findings had to be toned down or negotiated? How do scientists navigate such challenges?
“The content of science itself isn’t negotiated, but the way it is communicated can be,” she explained. “The IPCC’s summary for policymakers is co-developed with governments, and while the language is adjusted to reflect different political perspectives, the scientific foundation remains unchanged. It’s important to remember that authors hold the final pen...we do not accept modifications that are not scientifically accurate. So, it’s not about diluting the findings but reaching an agreement on wording that is acceptable to all parties.”
The next major IPCC report isn’t due until 2029.