The most formal embodiment of the scientific agreement on climate change can be found in an organization known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Based in Geneva and operating under the United Nations’ framework, it coordinates the collaborative efforts of thousands of scientists, industry specialists, nonprofit researchers, and government representatives to produce reports every five to seven years. These reports are the foundation for nearly all climate-related decisions globally, influencing everything from the US military’s threat assessments to international climate agreements.
It may come as a surprise that the IPCC operates on a very modest budget of approximately $4.3 million annually, funded by around 25 member countries and several UN groups. Traditionally, the largest portion of this funding has come from the United States—though this has changed recently.
During 2017, Congress and the previous administration effectively eliminated the US’s nearly $2 million contribution, and the subsequent 2018 budget specifically prohibited the State Department from allocating funds to the IPCC. Congress has control over budgetary decisions, and ultimately, the president plays a central role in shaping that budget: initially through proposals and later by signing the final bill into law. While the removal of funding does not immediately cripple the organization, it leaves US scientists at risk of missing out on critical scientific dialogues, potentially undermining the country’s preparation as climate change continues to unfold.
Established in 1988, the IPCC was created as an independent research unit in response to growing concerns among member nations about alarming climate science. Their intention was to create a body tasked with reviewing research and offering actionable recommendations to the UN. The IPCC’s fifth assessment report was released in 2014, with the sixth expected in 2022.
Participation is open to any country, and the IPCC’s executive committee chooses delegates according to the requirements of different working groups. These groups are not limited to scientists but also include industry representatives and specialists from various sectors interested in climate issues. Daniel Kammen, an energy physicist from UC Berkeley involved with the IPCC since 1999, notes that US participants are typically selected by the Department of Energy or the Environmental Protection Agency. They receive an invitation, with the understanding that their travel expenses will be covered by the US, even though their contributions are voluntary.
The volunteers do not conduct new research; instead, they evaluate existing literature to summarize a consensus on climate change, its effects, and strategies for mitigating its worst impacts. Numerous subgroups focus on specific areas such as renewable energy, agriculture, and rising sea levels, with most activities occurring remotely. The IPCC’s primary expenses involve funding travel for delegates to attend working group meetings, which typically occur once or twice a year.
These meetings are crucial to the IPCC’s work as they determine the focus of major reports. Consequently, the withdrawal of US funding could have significant repercussions. “The topics that concern us, like climate change and its impact on soil moisture and US farmers, may receive less consideration,” warns Kammen. Since the US represents only 2 percent of the Earth’s land area, the involvement of American scientists is critical to advocating for national interests in these discussions.