START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good

Why the Head of the UN Climate Panel Might Be Axed

Why the Head of the UN Climate Panel Might Be Axed

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) management structure needs to change, according to a review of the organization by the InterAcademy Council. The UN ordered five-month review by the InterAcademy Council pointed out that the IPCC’s “fundamental management structure” has “remained largely unchanged” since the organization’s founding. However, it’s the IPCC’s management structure that “comprises” it, according to the review.

The review gave the following reasons why the IPCC’s management structure must change:

The world has changed considerably since the creation of the IPCC, with major advances in climate science, heated controversy on some climate-related issues, and an increased focus of governments on the impacts and potential responses to changing climate. A wide variety of interests have entered the climate discussion, leading to greater overall scrutiny and demands from stakeholders. The IPCC must continue to adapt to these changing conditions in order to continue serving society well in the future.

The review recommends that the IPCC create an executive committee which would be elected by its members and would report to them. The executive committee would “act on issues and any other task specifically delegated by the Panel.” It should consist of no more than 12 members consisting of IPCC leaders, plus scientists, leaders from NGOs and the private sector.

One of the main reasons the review suggested an executive committee be created is that all major decisions by the IPCC are currently made at annual plenary sessions. The review said that “important decisions need to be made more often, and the bureau has too limited a set of responsibilities and meets too rarely to meet this need.”

IPCC Chair position may go

Another recommendation by the review concerning changing the management structure could jeopardize the position of the current IPCC chair, Rajendra Pachauri. The review recommended that an executive director be elected by the IPCC to lead the organization and “handle day-to-day operations.” The executive director’s term, the review suggested, should be limited to the “timeframe of one assessment.”

Pachauri said he will accept what the IPCC’s member-states decide. The 194 national governments that form the IPCC will review recommendations at the plenary in October and decide what actions to take.

“The IPCC will be strengthened by the IAC review and by others of its kind this year,” said Pachauri. “We already have the highest confidence in the science behind our assessments. We’re now pleased to receive recommendations on how to further strengthen our own policies and procedures.”

Read more: , , , ,

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
9:42PM PDT on Mar 28, 2014

Thank you.

9:40PM PDT on Mar 28, 2014

Thank you.

9:38PM PDT on Mar 28, 2014

Thank you.

9:37PM PDT on Mar 28, 2014

Thank you.

9:36PM PDT on Mar 28, 2014

Thank you.

6:57PM PDT on Sep 4, 2010

Not sure why you have a personal vendetta with Al Gore, Scott, but it's a classic example of attacking the messenger. His only contribution is public visibility and communication skill. Ask any actual working climate scientist, and he or she will tell you that Gore has faithfully conveyed the work of those scientists, and the data since "Inconvenient Truth" and other work is well above the projected trendlines.

4:53PM PDT on Sep 4, 2010

If CO2 is really a serious problem why does Al Gore have a carbon footprint 100x larger than mine? If he believed in anything besides the almighty buck he would at least take questions at his events. No questions and $60K per talk is pretty good, look behind the curtain, the science is a joke.

4:49PM PDT on Sep 4, 2010

Actually he has done an incredible job to keep this farce alive and make himself a mult-multi millionaire.
The IPCC(incredible piece of climate crap) is so full of half and untruths its amazing that people even reference it.

3:48AM PDT on Sep 2, 2010

noted, thanks.

7:52PM PDT on Sep 1, 2010

Hi Morgan, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by referencing the interference of creationists in biology. It further discredits your argument on global warming - the creationists, just like global warming deniers, have shown themselves to be fundamentally immune to evidence and engaged in something other than science. There is no observation or experiment that could change their assertion, and therefore their assertions are not testable, and therefore not "science."

And global warming has indeed attained the level of proof (which in science always means "provisional acceptance for the present day, pending future evidence") that evolution has, along with the germ theory of disease and the quantum theory of the atom. In fact, the way that political conservatives have paired their objection to including evolution in school curricula with their similar objection to global warming is a damning admission of their true nature.

add your comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

But why are we stuck up on finding out why? Does this not reinforce stigma? Finding any fault within…

Don't know if having a community reserve will be of that much use if just setting it up is itself going…

sad and so wrong but that is common in our government

ads keep care2 free

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

site feedback


Problem on this page? Briefly let us know what isn't working for you and we'll try to make it right!