ABSTRACT
To understand the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a politically situated actor, I argue that it is important to pay attention to the difference between how consensus is shaped in the underlying Working Group assessment reports, which typically exceed 1,500 pages, and Special Reports, versus the Summary for Policymakers (SPMs), which are much shorter documents of about 40 pages and are produced by IPCC authors and governmental delegates who must all agree on the exact wording of the text during IPCC approval plenaries. In such approval plenaries, it appears that government delegates can sometimes suggest wording that appears to be motivated by national self-interest. But IPCC authors are not beholden to this same logic of national self-interest when they are composing the underlying assessment reports. The underlying reports can thus more easily include progressive arguments about social transformation. To make this argument, I outline the processes through which the IPCC works.
