科学与政治之间:大规模政府间气候评估及其缺陷

Between science and politics: the role of international climate assessment in global climate policy-making

在应对全球气候变化问题上,政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)引领的大规模评估由于代表了国际科学界的集体工作,并与《联合国气候变化框架公约》下的国际谈判制度持续互动而备受关注。两者的密切关系已体现在气候治理的各个历史阶段。具体而言,通过嵌入国际制度,气候评估具有警告公众、影响国家政策取向、推动国际协议、促使跨国公司改变行为、引领科学研究和学术交流等重要作用。同时,IPCC还通过传播评估报告结论等方式参与国际气候外交。由于其开放性,科学评估也经常成为国家行为体和非国家行为体施加影响的政策工具。从科学与政治互动的积极方面来看,其一,科学评估机构一贯充当推动国际气候进程的角色,并凭借权威性,不断强化科学信息的政策扩散。其二,第五次报告发布之后,评估日益突出"解决方案"取向,2018年升温1.5℃特别报告和后续的第六次评估报告将影响《巴黎协定》的履约情况,其未来演进与机制改革也将深刻塑造2020年后的全球气候治理。虽然,气候评估已经证明了其作为科学合作机制的价值,但与国际谈判的关系也存在一些紧张之处:一是,评估机制弊端频现,影响对谈判的支撑。二是,机制安排的路径依赖性严重,缺乏重大而有效的改革。三是,评估结论的传播日益困难。四是,其评估内容与国际谈判时常脱节。本质上,这是由于科学形成共识规律与科学机构形成共识的政治机制存在矛盾。一方面,学科间的差异化和文献数量庞大导致评价日益难以形成共识;另一方面,科学机构作为"认知权威"具有以共识推动政治进程并提升其国际地位的偏好。两者围绕所谓的"共识"问题所形成的困境已经日益彰显。因此,重新理解政府间气候评估在全球政策制定中的角色已经成为当前治理中的紧迫问题。

In response to global climate change, the large-scale assessment led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change （IPCC） represents the collective efforts of the international scientific community and continues to interact with the international negotiation under the UN framework convention on climate change. The relationship between the two is reflected in various historical stages of global climate governance. By embedding into international institutions, science plays an important role in alerting the public, influencing state actors, reaching international agreements, urging transnational corporations to change behaviors, and facilitating the academic exchanges among research institutions. At the same time, the intergovernmental panel participates in international climate diplomacy through the form of assessment reports. Because of its openness, climate assessments are also often used as a policy tool for nations and non-state actors to exert their influence. From the positive side of the interplays between science and politics, first, IPCC as scientific assessment body has always played the role of promoting the international climate process, and by virtue of its authority, it has continuously strengthened the diffusion of scientific information to policies. Second, the 1.5 ℃ special report in 2018 and the follow-up AR6 are concerned about the impact of the Paris Agreement for the effectiveness of compliance. However, the drawbacks of the current assessment mechanism have been identified by various research and organizational arrangements are highly path-dependent. Also, the dissemination of report conclusions has become increasingly difficult, and issues such as the disconnection from international negotiations have become the main issue. In this regard, this paper argues that these problems are in essence the contradictions between mechanisms of the scientific institution to reach consensus and the rules for science to form consensus. On the one hand, due to the differences between disciplines and large volume of seientific litevature, it is increasingly difficult to form a consensus. On the other hand, IPCC as an epistemic authority has international political preferences that promote consensus in the political process and enhance their international prestige. There has been an increasing tension between the two around the issue of so called scientific consensus. However, climate assessment has already proved its value as an inter-governmental scientific cooperation. Its future evolution and reform will also profoundly affect global climate governance after 2020. Therefore, redefining the role of intergovernmental climate assessment in the formulation of global policies has become an urgent issue in climate governance.