Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Coursework Example

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Name Class Unit Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 2 Background 3 Expertise and participation on climate change 4 Impact on climate change 6 Advocacy positions 6 Good practices 8 Support for IPCC views 8 Conclusion 9 References 10 Introduction Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) is a body formed with a mandate to assess the climate change. The body was formed in 1988 by United Nations environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) (IPCC, 2015). The aim of the body has been to provide scientific knowledge on climate change- and its impacts on the environment and social economic (Nerlich, Koteyko & Brown, 2010). The UN general assembly endorsed the formation of IPCC in 1988. IPCC operates at the auspices of UN (Lawson, 2008). Over the years, IPCC has been assessing the recent scientific data and information produced worldwide. This has helped a lot in understanding climate change. IPCC does not conduct research or monitor the climate but depends on the published data (IPCC, 2015). The work of IPCC depends on thousands of scientist who volunteer their work. The main work of IPCC involves review which helps them to have a range of views from the experts (Guston, 2001). This report analyses the contribution of IPCC on the climate change debate. It critically assesses IPCC values and interests, advocacy position and use of science. Lastly, the support for IPCC views is addressed. Background The work of IPCC is coordinated by the IPCC with liaisons with other governments. The location of IPCC headquarters are in Geneva and administered according to UNEP, UN, WMO rules and procedures. Being an intergovernmental body, all member countries of the UN and WMO are open to join. IPCC has 195 member countries. Government participation is on the review process and sessions. This is where the main decisions are made on the IPCC work programme. Reports are approved and accepted at the same process. The plenary sessions also helps in electing the Bureau member and the chair (IPCC, 2015). The scientific and inter-governmental nature of IPCC has helped IPCC to come up with balanced decisions based on science. Through endorsement of the reports, the governments are able to show their authenticity of scientific content. IPCC tasks are policy relevant and still policy neutral (Hulme, 2009b). At the moment, the major climate change experiments being conducted are based on the information from IPCC. The validation and mobilisation of the knowledge on climate change has been carried out by the IPCC (IPCC, 2015). IPCC has provided an institutional process of making the climate change knowledge to be on the international policy process (Hulme, 2009b). The emergence of IPCC has helped a lot in making the governments to tackle the issue of climate change. This is especially on the use of fossil fuels and environment lobbies. IPCC is a single establsished source of information on the climate change. This has suited the convergence of interests in since, political and some of the businesses (Guston, 2001). Expertise and participation on climate change IPC C has a lot of knowledge on climate change which is obtained through assessment of scientific contributions (Henderson, 2007). IPCC is highly conventional in its hierarchical instincts. The body has been working in an all-inclusive system where scientific knowledge is sought from experts in different countries (Plimer, 2009). Despite the number of scientist from the developing countries being low, there have been a lot of efforts to increase them. The knowledge on climate change is gained through cooperation and participation (Grundmann, 2007). The work of IPCC is based on its rules and procedures. The rules and procedures have been revised in 1993 and 1999. The changes made led to introduction of review editors and formal rules of adoption (Inter Academy Council (IAC), 2010). This made it possible to determine how to select the research especially non peer reviewed information. There has been claims that information from non-published sources. IPCC has worked hard to maintain integrity and quality control in their operations (Henderson, 2007). IPCC has helped a lot in reducing the government influence on the climate negotiation process (Nordlund, 2008). This is through knowledge assessment process which is a positive achievement (Henderson, 2007). This has been achieved through high procedural bureaucracy and complexity. The main drawback of the process has been loss of credibility and accountability. IPCC is an example of the way in which knowledge should be reflected in practice (Guston, 2001). Since the inception, IPCC has been very open and explicit. This is through seeking scientific consensus on climate change especially based on the role of the human beings (Henderson, 2007). This is through consensus building among the partners. Seeking consensus for IPCC has been like looking for truth. The consensus making has been seen by many as looking for truth through collective judgement. Consensus making has been driven by the desire to communicate climate change science globally (Grundmann, 2007). The diversity of membership in IPCC has served as an advantage. This is through offering a multidimensional approach to uncertainty communication (Henderson, 2007). The body has been addressing uncertainty in some areas with an aim of making the decisions more legitimate. This has also helped in making clear communication when communicating with those outside the science discipline. It has also helped in enhancing stakeholders’ participation in climate change discussions (Demeritt, 2001). Impact on climate change IPCC has been having a great impact on the climate change knowledge. The knowledge disseminated by IPCC has helped a lot in public discourse on climate change and policy development (Franz, 1997). IPCC has helped the global climate change community through fashioning and consolidating it. There has been use of science in mobilisation and support for climate change campaigns (Lawson, 2008). The knowledge disseminated by IPCC is able to travel to all member states. This has helped a lot in altering scientific knowledge and practice. The knowledge has been used in coming up with inter disciplinary work based on climate change (Demeritt, 2001). In the public spheres, IPCC has gained a lot of visibility as an authoritative voice in climate change. In most of the public spaces, IPCC is seen a privileged and discursive leader. This was enhanced by the winning of 2007 Nobel peace prize (Dahan-Dalmedico, 2008). IPCC is able to use the science to provide the basis for political decisions legitimacy. IPCC has been able to prove that human interference with the climate will bring risks to both human and natural systems. This is through carrying out assessments on the human interference knowledge and coming up with objective reports (Carter, 2010). Advocacy positions After giving the information to stakeholders, they are expected to make judgement and choices. This is based on the seriousness of the risks and actions required. The stakeholders are expected to take the option with the best expected benefits (Dahan-Dalmedico, 2008). To advocate for climate change, IPCC has been designing measures and decision how to present them to the stakeholders. This is through understanding the strengths and limitations of the stakeholders at different levels. In some cases, IPCC understands that the decision makers may lack adequate knowledge on climate change and risks involved (Budescu, Broomell & Por, 2009). This is a deficit that IPCC advocates for its elimination through use of public education. This is through considering the existing cognitive and motivational barriers. In some cases, the decision makers are limited by lack of time and being bounded rational. In some cases, the decisions makers use the rule of thumb and simple heuristics (Montford, 2010). When groups are coming up with common decisions, there is likelihood of conflict and disagreement. These are some of the challenges that IPCC faces when advocating for climate change through use of scientific knowledge (Carolan, 2008). In some cases, status quo makes it hard to make a concrete decision in the member states. This has been seen in initiatives such as reducing the GHG emissions. This is due to fact that some of the players start looking at the benefits they will get from the reduction of emissions (Budescu, Broomell & Por, 2009). IPCC has been in the front line in addressing the challenges that faces the developing countries. This is due to fact that addressing climate change in the developing countries in different than in developed countries. In developing countries, non-state actors play a major role in making decisions on climate change (Carolan, 2008). This has made IPCC to disseminate its information to both the government and non-state actors. In some cases, the risks and uncertainty on climate change has been shifted from the government to non-state actors. This has made IPCC to realise that the methods and decision making aids developed for developed countries may fail to work in less developed countries. In developing countries, decisions are made by tribe and clans. There are also social norms, culture and traditions. IPCC has been very successful in addressing this challenge through their advocacy (Bjurström & Polk, 2010). Good practices IPCC has been an advocate for good practices in waste management. This is through publishing of scientific knowledge which is aimed at proper waste disposal to cater for environment. One of the areas where there has been a lot of knowledge disseminated by IPCC is waste incineration. The reports show how the incineration of municipal waste leads to climate change through emissions (Betz, 2009). The reports are aimed at helping the relevant governments to come up with waste management techniques that reduce the environmental impacts. For example, there have been reports which supports that the municipal waste can be used to generate power. Through high energy efficiencies, it is possible to optimise the waste disposal. Through support of good practices, IPCC has been able to transform the world perception on climate change and waste management (Franz, 1997). Support for IPCC views IPCC use of science to address climate change has been very successful. This is evidenced by the fact that most of the member states have adopted policies and decision making procedures based on IPCC information (IPCC, 2015). The body has been able to address the issues faced by the developing countries on addressing the climate change (Betz, 2009). This is due to fact that most of the developing countries face a challenge in making decisions due to non-stake actors. IPCC has come up with a framework in which non state actors can be involved in the process of making decisions. It is important to note the government decisions are easily made when supported by scientific evidence. Through providing scientific evidence, IPCC has made it easier for governments to make climate change decisions (Bjurström & Polk, 2010). Despite the success, there are some areas on IPCC views which need to be addressed. IPCC reports have come under criticism on their objectivity and comprehensiveness. There is a number of weaknesses that needs to be looked at. The process of selecting lead authors has been seen by many as opaque (Beck, 2010). The past selection of authors has been under a lot of criticism with claims that they have been dominated by political considerations. There has also been deficiency in peer review process (McLean, 2009). This has led to possibility that IPCC bureau can pre determine the report outcome. In some of the reports, there has been no government review. Almost 90% of the member countries fail to submit their reviews. This has led to poor oversight (Bagla, 2010). Despite the weakness, IPCC has been very effective in its work. The body just requires working on improving their weakness and addressing the criticism (Bjurström & Polk, 2010). Conclusion IPCC has made a significant contribution to the debate on climate change. This is through assessment of climate change through science. Established in 1988, the body has been very relevant in fighting for climate change through scientific reviews on the current state of climate change and potential impacts on environment and socio economic. IPCC can be categorised as a scientific body on climate change. The intergovernmental body has contributed a lot of scientific knowledge with a range of views and expertise. The members are from different countries which have necessitated needs for different approach to climate change. Despite the success in addressing climate change, IPCC has come under criticism. The main areas of criticism are on selection process, lack of full range of views and poor peer review. These are the areas which IPCC has to address. References Bagla, P. 2010. “Climate science leader Rajendra Pachauri confronts his critics”, Science Vol.327, 510-511 Beck, S. 2010, “One size fits all?” Can the IPCC serve as blueprint for scientific advice on adaptation to climate change? Regional Environmental Change Betz, G. 2009, “Under-determination, model-ensembles and surprises: on the epistemology of scenario analysis in climatology,” Journal of the General Philosophy of Science, Vol.,40, no.1, p.3-21 Bjurström, A. & Polk, M. 2010, Physical and economic bias in climate change research: a scientometric study of IPCC Third Assessment Report Climatic Change Budescu, D.V., Broomell, S. & Por, H-H. 2009, “Improving communication of uncertainty in reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” Psychological Science, Vol. 20, no.3, p.299-308. Carolan, M. S. 2008, “The bright-and blind-spots of science: why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies,” Critical Sociology Vol.34, no.5, p.725- 740. Carter, Robert M. 2010, Climate: The Counter-Consensus. London: Stacey International. Dahan-Dalmedico, A. 2008, “Climate expertise: between scientific credibility and geopolitical imperatives,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 33, no.1, p.71-81 Demeritt, D. 2001, “The construction of global warming and the politics of science”, Annals Association American Geographers, Vol.91, no.2, p.307-337 Franz, W. E. 1997, The development of an international agenda for climate change: connecting science to policy Interim Report IR-97-034, IIASA, Laxenburg, 35pp. Grundmann, R. 2007, “Climate change and knowledge politics,” Environmental Politics, Vol.16, no.3, p.414-432 Guston, D. 2001, “Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An Introduction Science,” Technology & Human Values, Vol.26, no.1, p.399-408. Henderson, D.2007 “Governments and Climate Change Issues: The Case for Rethinking”. World Economics, Vol. 8 No 2, April-June 2007, pp 204-5. Hulme, M. 2009b, Mediating the messages about climate change: reporting the IPCC Fourth Assessment in the UK print media pp.117-128 in, Climate change and the media(eds.) Boyce,T. and Lewis, J., Peter Lang, New York, 261pp Inter Academy Council (IAC) 2010 “Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC”. Netherlands: IAC, Viewed 17th October 2015 from, http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html. Lawson, N. 2008“An Appeal To Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming”. London: Duckworth Overlook. McLean, J. 2009 “Peer Review? What Peer Review? Failures of Scrutiny in the UN’s Fourth Assessment Report.” Science and Public Policy Institute. Washington DC. Montford, Andrew 2010 “The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science”. London: Stacey International. Nerlich, B., Koteyko, N. and Brown, B. 2010, “Theory and language of climate change communication,” WIREs Climate Change, Vol.1, no.1, p.97-110 Nordlund, G. 2008 Futures research and the IPCC assessment study on the effects of climate change Futures40, 873-876 Plimer, I. 2009, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science. Lanham: Taylor Trade Publishing. IPCC, 2015, organisation, Viewed 17th October 2015 from http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml Read More